Giuliani- Abysmal Record on Free Speech

[Iplayboard]

The Giuliani Administration lost almost every free speech case brought against it by the New York Civil Liberties Union.

The worst case occured over the Brooklyn Museum artwork "Sensation." Giuliani originally approved the artwork, which was displayed in the publically funded Brooklyn Museum. Then after public outrage from Conservative groups, Giuliani did an about-face, suddenly condeming the work. He unsuccessfully went to court to try to stop funding to the Museum. He NEVER saw the work of art in question.

No one should be elected president who has shown such a blatent disregard for the 1st Ammendment. The only reason Rudy has any chance of being elected president is because of 9/11. Sounds familiar.

Rudy boy is a terrorism magnet. In New York during 9/11 and at the G8 meeting during the London bombings. Only an idiot would vote for a terrorism magnet like him.

[slamdunkpro]

Giuliani scares me.

Didn’t he or his administration create and institute the “seize and sell property before conviction” policy in NYC?

[The Truth]

[ QUOTE ]
Giuliani scares me.

Didn’t he or his administration create and institute the “seize and sell property before conviction” policy in NYC?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't realize that. Although I know he trys to take credit for the crime drop in NY, which had nothing to do with him.


-blake

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
No one should be elected president who has shown such a blatent disregard for the 1st Ammendment.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why would acknowledging public opinion in respect to what is displayed in a publicly funded museum have anything to do with the 1st Ammendment?

[Iplayboard]

[ QUOTE ]

Why would acknowledging public opinion in respect to what is displayed in a publicly funded museum have anything to do with the 1st Ammendment?

[/ QUOTE ]

"A poll conducted by the New York Daily News showed that 60 percent of all New Yorkers, including 48 percent of Catholics, opposed the mayor's stand."

So Guiliani's position was actually contrary to public opinion. He was just pandering to a few vocal opponents of the artwork.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
"A poll conducted by the New York Daily News showed that 60 percent of all New Yorkers, including 48 percent of Catholics, opposed the mayor's stand."

So Guiliani's position was actually contrary to public opinion. He was just pandering to a few vocal opponents of the artwork.

[/ QUOTE ]
What do numbers have to do with it? (Although it would be interesting to see the poll question). And I wouldn't characterize 40% as "a few vocal ...", not that it matters.
Nobodys rights were violated, there are plenty of private venues for controversial "art".

[Felix_Nietsche]

He unsuccessfully went to court to try to stop funding to the Museum.
************************************************** ******
........since when has it become a 1st amendment right for artwork to be funded by tax dollars?
PUBLIC museums exist at the privilege of the tax payers. Since Rudy was elected by the tax payers of New York to represent their interests, he was within his rights to threaten to take away their funding for displaying contraversial 'art'.

The artist in question was not prevented to display his work in a PRIVATE gallery so no ones rights were infringed.

I think Rudy G was a scumbag federal DA who wrongly prosecuted Michael Miliken (the Junk Bond King). People lost their butts investing in Junk Bonds paying 20% interest rates. They were happy to collect the 20% interest rates but they forgot the reason they were called JUNK bonds because they were very HIGH risk investments. Rudy used his office to bully Michael Miliken into a plea bargain so he could be seen as a champion of the 'little guy'. It worked well, it launched his political career.

[Iplayboard]

[ QUOTE ]
since when has it become a 1st amendment right for artwork to be funded by tax dollars?
PUBLIC museums exist at the privilege of the tax payers. Since Rudy was elected by the tax payers of New York to represent their interests, he was within his rights to threaten to take away their funding for displaying contraversial 'art'."


[/ QUOTE ]

Guiliani wasn't within his rights, that's why his legal battle to take away funding was unsuccessful. He wasn't representing the interests of the taxpayers seeing as how the majority disagreed with his actions.

Anyway the point of my post wasn't to say that Guiliani was neccessarily in the wrong, which he was, but just to say that it was just a political stunt. He didn't do it for his convictions or for the taxpayers, but just to appeal to conservative groups. How could he possibly say it's offensive without even seeing it? That'd be like me saying the Passion of the Christ is a shitty movie without having gone to watch it.

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
How could he possibly say it's offensive without even seeing it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't necessarily buy that argument. If somebody discribes a piece of art to you that included elephant dung on the Virgin Mary, would you really need to see it in person to determine if you found it offensive or inappropriate?



[ QUOTE ]
He wasn't representing the interests of the taxpayers seeing as how the majority disagreed with his actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if the majority of people disagree with you in a poll, it means you aren't representing their best interests? At the time of the Iraq War resolution in Congress a few years ago, the majority of Americans polled were in favor of it. Did those members of Congress who voted against the war do a disservice to their constituents?