Re: Talk of interest to visual studies folks (2 responses)

From: "Michael Fitzgerald" <[email protected]>

I agree with Freeman.

Michael Ray Fitzgerald

---------

From: "Paul Schulte" <[email protected]>

For Mark:

1.  The governor did not remove a 'historical' work.  He removed  
(although
there seems to be some contention about this) a new work about the  
history
of labor.
2.  Labor unions are political entities as seen by their contributions  
to
political campaigns and support of political causes.
3.  The majority of the panels of the mural are pro-union. This was a
deliberate choice by the artist and her advisor (according to the  
material
on her site).
4.  The Maine Department of Labor is supposed to represent all  
laborers, not
just union members.
5.  A pro-union mural in the Department of Labor would violate the
neutrality of the department.  Removing it from the front lobby would be
within the mandate of the department, since it violates its neutrality.
6. Whether the governor had the power to remove it is a different issue.
7. The word 'bonehead' is a pejorative.
8.  Since the majority of academics are liberal, the term 'Tea Party' is
intended to be both pejorative and political.
9. Using 'bonehead Tea Party' to describe the governor of Maine makes  
the
invitation both offensive and political.
10. Had 'bonehead Tea Party' not been part of the invitation, I would  
not
have had a problem with the post.
11. When the Obama administration was trying to get artists to conceive
works that would support the administration and its causes, I did not  
see a
call to arms from this forum.  I think this is worthy of discussion.
12.  When the Obama re-election committee asked artists for campaign  
art,
for which they would not be paid and all submissions would become the
property of the Obama campaign, I did not hear a call to arms from this
forum.   I think this is worthy of discussion.

Paul Schulte

-----Original Message-----
> Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 8:51 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Talk of interest to visual studies folks
>
> From: Mark Freeman <[email protected]>
>
> I believe that art and politics are (often) intrinsically related.
> Certainly the removal of historical work by a governor objecting to
> the content of the art is an explicitly political act.
>
> Political speech, no matter if intemperate or offensive, should be the
> most protected speech, and the least subject to censorship--- even/
> (especially) in the context of an academic forum.
>
> I believe that the appropriate response to characterizations and
> opinions that some find objectionable is more speech, not less.
>
> I would be very uncomfortable with empowering a moderator to edit
> remarks found to be politically motivated and/or opinionated.  It's a
> slippery slope.  In my "opinion" if we believe that Ai Wei Wei should
> be able to speak freely in China, we should also staunchly defend free
> speech and the rights of artists in our own forum, and in our own
> country.
>
> I would hope that protocols for moderating the H-FILM  list would
> explicitly safeguard free speech.
>
>
> Mark Freeman
> Chair SDSU Senate Freedom of Expression Committee
>
> Professor
> School of Theatre, Television, and Film
> San Diego State University
> 5500 Campanile Dr.
> San Diego, CA 92182-7601
> Ph  619 594-5497
> Fax 619 594-1391
> http://www.markfreemanfilms.org
>
> "Freedom of expression is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of
> nearly every other form of freedom." - Benjamin Nathan Cardozo
>
> MODERATOR'S NOTE: Just so the list is clear on the process, when we
> suggest any rewording of a post -- which is VERY rare these days -- we
> ONLY do so with the consent of the original author. Ultimately it's
> supposed to be their words -- their name is attached to them -- so
> such editing requires their approval. Our greatest concern, of course,
> is anything that is potentially libelous (but this is exceedingly
> rare). More generally, our concern is just to keep the discussion
> focused on the purpose of the list ("encourages scholarly discussion
> of cinema history and uses of the media"). Such discussion is not
> useful when it disintegrates into name-calling.  "Bonehead" gets into
> that territory. Then it should be added, when the original author was
> made aware of this they agreed it was "inappropriate" and apologized
> for its use. Those who disagree -- and this is also rare -- have
> plenty of other forums at their disposal where they are free to say
> whatever they want. In our experience, most appreciate that H-Film
> endeavors to keep the discussion on-topic and civil. Again, our
> apologies to this list for not sorting this out beforehand.
>