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?

[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.

[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

[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.

[JackWhite]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

I want to know if people are consistent on this. If a public art museum say..in Detroit, displayed a piece of art portraying slavery as a great institution, and the mayor tried to kick it out of a taxpayer funded museum, would everyone be outraged over this supression of free speech?

[Beer and Pizza]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess that rules out Hillary Clinton, who ran those secretive health care meetings.

[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".