Well stated.

If you don't like the expression of others concerning something you hold dear, don't ban their expression, present a better one.

In that light one Saudi blogger (Raed AlSaeed) has been intelligent enough to do a short contra-film to Sitna called "Schism".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpiccERJaFk

Far more importantly however is the effective end of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights thanks to the actions of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference.

http://www.iheu.org/node/3123

Lev - you are being much to reasonable.

Prisoners sometimes spread their faeces over the walls of their cells to make a statement. Now Lev - do you expect that the warders should have a little meeting on how they can make a better statement on the walls opposite?

Double standards are everywhere.

Look no further than OLO, where it is OK to rubbish Christianity but any criticism of Islam is immediately jumped on by the usual self-haters who prefer to insult their own kind, rather than trying to tell Muslims that their intolerance and hatred has no place in Western society. Critics of Islam have an “axe to grind” we were gratuitously advised by one of these misguided people recently.

We are in danger of losing all that has been gained in 300 years of struggle. Those smug, deluded Westerners who support double standards for Moslems are as much enemies of democracy as any religious fanatic. Do we blame "multiculturalism" for this sinister lunacy?

Great article, particularly coming from a Muslim perspective. It'd be great to hear more of this kind of good sense expressed by Muslim voices.

Mr Right: << ...intolerance and hatred has no place in Western society >>

I agree, but would extend this obligation to the entire community, not just Muslims.

When the 'champions' of free speech defend the Victorian Governments religous vilification laws which resulted in 2 Pastors ( one an ex muslim) being charged for speaking the truth we see what hypocrites and how gutless many on the left really are. They really just want the right to vilify and mock the living God and His Son and then respect every other dead god because really many of them are earth worshipers and lovers of themselves. They then have the audacity to call followers of Christ hypocrites.

OK. I'll bite. The usual anti-Muslim rubbish, as shown by the nonsensical posters before me.

There is a mad Christian ideologue in charge of the White House. He represents a much greater threat to world peace than any Muslim.

Mr. Right, Being too reasonable is a habit of mine :-) For your question, if a prisoner smears faeces over the walls of their own cell to make a statement, do you think the best response is to do nothing at all? I rather suspect after a few nights in a faeces-stained cell they'll think about cleaning off their statement themselves.

Runner, Principled people on the left, right and centre of politics condemned the RRTA because it was about censorship on the basis of thin skin. However, in other discussions here you have supported censorship. Did you not suggest in a previous thread suggest that people who practise abortions, teach that we "came from apes" and teach the truth of global warming should be jailed. And you have the audicity to call others hypocrites? I suggest you have a good look at your own work.

Passy, Whilst your comment may be true, that doesn't contradict the issue being discussed here. Indeed, if we do not defend free expression both here and overseas then we are guaranteed to end up with terrorists, both state-sponsored and otherwise.

Lev,

Look again. I did not ask a question about anything, including crap on walls.

Good article - I'd pretty much agree there. I dismiss it when Christians whinge about critiques of their religion, but I do appreciate the fact that they're unlikely to react with violence.

Freedom of speech is very important, regardless of which faith is being criticised. So yes, I do appreciate honest criticism of Islam, just as I'd like to see those who wish to defend it, to be free to defend it.

Though it does get up my nose when people play the 'my religion's better than yours game' or dismiss entire religions as 'evil.' Though the beauty of free speech is being able to refute these other views - and that's what's most important of all.

Mr Right, I might ask what can we gain by preaching more hate on Islam right now, but only making more who will take over from bin Laden?

Surely there must be still a way we can manage some sort of peaceful negotiation with the Muslims, especially as it is so desperately needed?

Cheers - BB, WA

We are supposed to be a secular country so as to not allow this bs to happen. Yet our government rewrote our constitutions some years ago to deny the rights of gay people to marry like anyone else. That is purely a religious agenda. Also, our current censorship laws and the new internet censorship that is on it's way, are almost purely religious motivatation. This is because of christians, christianity and catholicism and every other variation of it in Australia. Secularism is somewhat of a myth, but we are writing laws that only christians would lobby for.

Lev

You are an expert at reporting half truths. If you were to read the post where I wrote 'that people who practice abortions, teach that we "came from apes" and teach the truth of global warming should be jailed.' you would see I was responding to some ignorant person who was suggesting that bible believing Christians should be jailed. Again the deafening sound from the left in Victoria exposed its total hypocrisy. If you are going to quote someone try and at least get it in some sort of context and you might win some credibility.

Go ahead and take what ever you want out of context. Religion is the biggest joke on the planet. No other species needs it, except the small minded and the insecure.

Sensitivities! What about ours?, We are the ones that have to put up with your crap. I believe there should be a four year course in reality.

Sensible piece. The 'west' has painted itself into a corner by being gratuitously nice and by not realising that to prevent islam from taking over the world the same ruthlessness must be adopted.
If it was 1939 people would be getting punished for expressing a negative view of the nazis.
Our civilisation and freedoms are at stake so wake up folks.

Great article. At the same time I do wonder about the balance or freedom and responsibility in freedom of speech.

The Piss Christ thing seems to be an example where the purpose was to offend. Was there any chance of a message we needed to hear other than that our society allowed the image? Something where offense by those who love their christ was expected and not unreasonable.

Sometimes we will need to offend others because a message needs to be heard but unless there is some important message attached to Piss Christ then it seems to me the balance was lost.

I'll happily rebutt false claims made by people of "faith" and accept that innocent bystanders may be offended in the process but to deliverately seek to offend just because I can is a different thing.

I doubt that the law can deal with that issue adequately but it's something to consider.

R0bert

<<When the National Gallery of Victoria displayed Piss Christ in 1997, a petition against it being displayed by Dr George Pell, the Archbishop of Melbourne, was rejected by the Victorian court in support of the artist’s right to express his mind.>>

LUDICROUS.... of course the above report makes an absolute joke out of the RRT2001 because as long as the vilification is presented in a WORK OF ART context.. it is immune from prosecution.

So.. everything can simply go on as if the act did not exist.. all you have to do is call it 'art'....

"Street Theatre" in which the characters say 'alarming/annoying/vilifying things about Mohammad or Buddha or Brahmin or Jesus.

When I made a complaint to the EOC about "Da Gospel According to
Ali G" in which he mocks the ten commandments and does a whole lot of stuff which is outright vilifiying to Christians, Jews and the Church, the complaint was rejected because it was not 'Sasha Baren Cohen' who's views were being expressed, but the views of 'Ali G' the character.

Well..that's how they saw it anyway. But weeee know...don't we.

So..even an opinion piece here could be outrageously vilifying of a public figure.. perhaps even grossly defamatory..and as long as it was 'The character' doing it... you are apparently immune to complaint or prosecution.

Lets have a street theatre event..where the torture and beheading of Kinana Chief of the khaybar Jews is portrayed and Mohammad taking his 17 yr old wife is shown... Or..show him taking 9 yr old ayesha into his bed. As long as it is 'art' nothing can be done to stop it.

Or we could portray Muslim soldiers who have just killed the men of a tribe, and now ask Mohammad if they can practice 'coitus interruptus' with the women..and Mohammad says 'No, you can go all the way' (words to that effect)

So the Act is a joke..

"When I made a complaint to the EOC about "Da Gospel According to
Ali G""

Perfect example of a frivolous complaint. It's free speech. You've spent plenty of time on these boards villifying Islam and you have no problem with it. So you sir, are a hypocrite. It never occurs to you that other people find something like Ali G entertaining and enjoyable. All you think about is banning it so no one else can view this entertainment. Rather than switch off the television you go and cry like babies to the government authorities for the ban. Then you will spout off about Islam and pornography and whatever else you deem offensive. NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO WATCH ANYTHING.

David,
I agree, the vilification Act is a joke. It was just a PC stunt to grab a few votes before a tight election. So why do you bother appealling to it as if it was anything more than a joke?

Lev and Runner,
People who practice abortions should be jailed. This is not my opinion. It's what is written in the Crimes Act.

Hussain I agree wholeheartedly with your arguments. No-one should be denied a platform. Let the racists speak. What is really important today is to safeguard the rights of all to freedom of speech. Of particular concern is that today we have people arrested and charged on flimsy evidence suggesting that they may be likely to commit an offence, without having done anything. Thankfully some of these bogus charges have been thrown out of court.

Hi Dan.. I refer to the RRTA because it is 'orwellian' in nature and impact.

The Act was used perniciously and conspiratorially against the 2 Dannies. This is my biggest concern. When a member of the Islamic Council of ViC is ALSO on the EOC..and then, pre-programmed spies are sent to report badly (no matter what they actually heard) of a seminar to give the Act some real world teeth at our expense... welllllll... I see the same thing Jews might see when they read Mein Kampf.

TRTL.. I saw myself in your post :)

I condemn ANY religion which permits child sexual abuse and if you cannot.. then I find that strange. If you look up Surah 65:4 and then track down some academic commentaries on it, you will find it permits the
-marriage to
-sexual use of
-divorce of

....Pre-pubescent female children.

see THIS http://www.danielpipes.org/ about poor 8 yr old Najoud.
BUT WAIT...thats just 'anti muslim propoganda from Daniel Pipes...right?

Ok.. see it here in the Yemen Times
http://yementimes.com/article.shtml?i=1145&p=front&a=2

If you feel that this is not grounds for making religious comparisons and claiming the a religion which teaches a pure and caring attitude to children is not 'better' for society, then I'd have worries about your own moral credentials. I'd even accept someone making comparisons between secular attitudes and this awful travesty of human relations.

The point about raising such issues, is not to play "Mine is better than yours" as much as it is about demonstrating that the RRTA can be used to STIFLE such criticism on the grounds that it 'vilifies' a particular faith. Worse..that ones motive, which is in reality the public interest....can be deemed 'irrelevant'. Of course, the rider is that as long as one argues in good faith and reasonably, it's supposed to be 'ok'...but you can waste a hell of a lot of time and money trying to show that you did act in good faith.

So.. lets RID ourselves of this abominable and oppressive Act.

I believe in an artist being able to express themselves. This includes
the using of so-called religions such as Islam for artistic expression. However I also believe that Christianity should be off limits to this "expression."

Mr. R..,

Apologies, my misktake - the response should have been to Healthwatcher.

Runner,

Please do not lie, especially in a public forum where it makes you look even more foolish.

In the post where you said that abortionists, teaches of evolution and climatologists should be jailed you were responding directly to me (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7210#110581). Nobody in that thread said that "bible believing Christians should be jailed".

As for the left supposedly being silent on the issue, I can assure you there was significant debate with the Socialist Left of the ALP, the legislation was strongly opposed by Liberty Victoria, the largest civil liberties group in the state, with Brian Walters SC, taking a leading role at protest rallies on the steps of parliament (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/speaking-freely-is-risky-business-rally-told/2006/08/08/1154802889839.html). The socialist newspaper, Green Left Weekly, has long opposed censorship even on matters it despises (http://www.greenleft.org.au/2000/425/22538).

Once again, I have shown you to be in complete error on the basis of facts. I wish you would learn from this.

Dan,

You are incorrect. In Victoria following the Supreme Court decision of 1969 ('the Menhennitt ruling') an abortion can be lawful (c.f., http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/Pubs/RP/1998-99/99rp01.htm)

beaumonde,

I hope for your sake you can see the contradiction in claiming that artists are entitled to free expression but the subject of Christianity is off-limits.

Lev

You know as well as I do that I was responding to your post where you wrote 'Those who, as a matter of religious beliefs, claim that their "holy text" is the result of perfect divine revelation, are ridiculous (and possibly dangerous) individuals and deserve to be considered as such.' I added to it by writing ' 'You should also include in your list that people who murder the unborn, teach that we came from apes and scare the heck out of kids with global warming crap should be jailed.' My point was obvious. The fundamentalist humanist is more dangerous and violent than your bible believing Christian. Your half truths and mis representations continue. If bible believing Christians who are generally peace loving people are dangerous then how much more the teachers of lies and murderers of the unborn.

It is your intent to misrepresent that is the lie in this case.

"If bible believing Christians who are generally peace loving people "
runners claim

"Big blokes in balaclava's with dogs.. it's simple.. " http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1690#32866

Fair point runner but plenty of us don't much like a fundies idea of peace - people torn to pieces by big blokes in balaclava's with dogs.

There have been plenty of other instances where that bible believing christain has showed his joy and passion for peace achieved by beating up others. Perhaps you follow the link and point out how unchristain his taste for violence is.

R0bert

Perceived favouritism towards minorities is a significant source of prejudice and resentment, and is easily fuelled – look at the number of credulous bigots who accepted without question the recent hoax e-mail on refugees getting favourable social security entitlements, including some posters to a forums on this site:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1667

Unfortunately, those who complain of dual standards do sometimes have a point, and this article highlights is an important example of a case where inconsistency has the potential to do enormous damage.

The author is spot on in pointing out the risk that dual standards will eventually be resolved by extending the same privileges to Christianity as are currently enjoyed by Islam This would be a terrible development, not only for the principle of free speech, but also for Christianity and Islam, which have more to gain than to lose by exposure to what their critics have to say about them, even if the message is sometimes “highly offensive.”

R0bert raises an interesting point about pieces being produced with the intent to offend, which I’m sure many “art” works are. Offensive sells. Let’s face it, as art “Piss Christ” was less akin to piss than the other stuff, but we’ve all heard of it and seen the pictures, thanks in part to Pell’s predictable and fruitful (for the artist) intervention. Here in WA we recently had an interpretation of the York Crucifixion that earned a mediocre production front-page publicity, because its crucified Christ was portrayed by a bare-breasted woman. Some of the anti-Islamic material that has recently claimed the headlines, including Fitna, seems equally intended to provoke more than enlighten.

The response to these provocations, whether directed at Islam or Christianity, should be the same - ignore them or critique them as they deserves, but don’t ban them, because:

- The principle of freedom of speech is more important than the protection of religious sensitivities

- The courtroom is the last place to discriminate between legitimate artistic or theological expression and unacceptable religious offensiveness; and

- It only encourages the production of more bad art

CJ – The author of this piece is an ex-Muslim and a regular contributor to Islam Watch. Hence the enlightened speak.


Lev – Thank you for the links!

(1) The response to Fitna contains some fascinating stuff:

The “Jesus Camp” (“Kids on Fire School of Ministry” in North Dakota run by Becky Fisher) footage is bizarre. One of the participants claims the film was “manipulated by the directors in their effort to cast evangelical Christianity in an unflattering light” (he was obviously cast in an unflattering light). Apologists abound. I think condemnation is the appropriate response.

The British soldiers beating up Iraqi teens caught throwing rocks at US soldiers at street riots in Bara in 2004: apparently the subject of a Royal Military Police investigation. The US and British Governments expressed shock and outrage at the footage. I wonder if the offending soldiers were disciplined in any way…?

You go Raed Alsaeed! Ah the delicious taste of freedom (of expression). I hope it is addictive.

(2) Again, a gripping read. The page referenced links to:

http://www.article19.org/pdfs/press/petition-hrc.pdf

* A statement from 40 civil rights organizations calling to protect the mandate of Freedom of expression. The 30 March, 2008 must have been a sad day for them.

As the headline from the link states “Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights”

Sad day for us all. With a whimper, not a bang.

Rhian – I did love your reasoning, in regard to encouraging more bad art.

Hussain – from the IHEU:

“Freedom of expression is that right which – uniquely – enables us to expose, communicate and condemn abuse of all our other rights. Without freedom of expression and freedom of the press we give the green light to tyranny and make it impossible to expose corruption, incompetence, injustice and oppression.”

You have known a long time which way the wind is blowing. I am greatly encouraged by the moral fortitude required to question Islam Inc. But for how much longer …?

Jolly good article.

Also, am I the only person in the world who actually thinks Piss Christ is quite beautiful? Have another look. http://grammarpolice.net/archives/images/pisschrist.jpg

Also, we should make up a drinking game that's based around how quickly Boazy can turn a thread into a diatrible against Mozzies. You have to skull whenever he types the terms "doctrinally" or "NOW we are getting somewhere".

R0bert

You obviously were not around when the painters and dockers thought nothing of killing people who threatened their empire. No sane person could delight in seeing someone ravished by dogs even if it is a bunch of crooks.

Getting away with all messed up, that's the living.

All the best.

Getting away with it all messed up, that's the living. Words can be the blade.

All the best.

Katie0: << CJ – The author of this piece is an ex-Muslim and a regular contributor to Islam Watch. >>

That's as may be, Katie0. Nonetheless, the article's still a good one. Those of us who aren't intellectually disabled by religious faith are able to judge an argument on its merits, rather than on the existential angst of its author.

In this article, Hussain makes sense. Unfortunately, his capacity to communicate such sound ideas to Muslims is compromised by his apparent abandonment of Islam. A pity, the world needs such messages from within Islam, rather than from the outside. I understand that the 'apostate' perspective isn't exactly valued within Islam.

Which is pretty similar to any religion I can think of, actually.

Lev,
Perhaps you should try reading your own links before you post them.

What I wrote was entirely correct. The Menhennitt ruling helped to interpret the Act, but it never changed it. The ruling helps to describe under which circumstances abortion is legal. But abortion is still on the books as an illegal practice.

If this was not the case, why would Labor in Victoria currently be considering decriminalising abortion?

RObert: <unless there is some important message attached to Piss Christ then it seems to me the balance was lost…
but to deliverately seek to offend just because I can is a different thing.>

You sound so rational and reasonable, I find myself agreeing with you, and then I wake up. You are trampling all over the freedom of expression that the UNHRC was set up to protect. Let me be the first to shake your hand when you are appointed as the UN Special Rapporteur.

Our author wrote this prior to the UNHRC resolution being adopted:

“….Imposing a wholesale ban on any kind of expression, as intended in the latest UNHRC resolution, is exactly the opposite of what freedom of expression stands for.”

Rhian: As per the original charter of the UNHRC, it should be our goal to PRESERVE the freedoms enshrined for ALL, globally, without limitation.

The privilege of religious organisations to cry foul whenever something perceived to be offensive is made public is NOT western liberal democracy. The original charter has been turned on it’s head. Even your post here could be perceived to be “highly offensive” to some sensibilities

BTW: I meant to say that I enjoyed the comment on DIScouraging bad art.

CJ: Good gosh. We agree (I did say "enlightened").

Vanilla: I had to click through the link, my curiousity got the better of me. The artwork is beautiful. Graphically stunning. Fortunately, I’m not as hung up on the iconography as my Catholic brethren. And in any case, I believe in the risen Christ.

But back to RObert, I am interested to find out if this artist has a particular ideology to push. I can’t even work out if this artwork is an installation (with a constant supply of fresh urine, which let’s face it, looks like a glass of VB with that lovely golden hue) or a painting. The artist has won the right to express his mind, context is everything (I’d love an explanation – anyone?) Dare I say this might just be a flash in the pan.

Vanilla.. .. I saw that..I saw that ! :)

just a minor point of order though.. my 'diatribes' are against Islam, generally not mozzies.

If it were not so easy to find a basis for murder in the doctrines and practices of Islam and its prophet, there would not be any Mohammad Buyeri's killing Theo Van Goghs. I don't know if you have ever examined the similarity .. between Mohammads ordering the murder of a Jewish poet Ka'b bin Al Ashraf but seriously, you would benefit greatly from at least becoming aware of this in terms of how you percieve many of my posts.

Please take 5min to survey this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ka'b_ibn_al-Ashraf

Muslims are very defensive of this murder, and use it as an example to justify murdering political opponents. The Muslims emphasise "He was plotting against Mohammad", but they neglect the 'mocking poetry' aspect, though they often do add "But he also mocked Muslim women" as if 'that' is justification to murder him.
They also neglect the gravity of Mohammads brutal and merciless execution of the Qaraysh nobility after the Battle of Badr which was the trigger for Ka'b's ill feeling toward Mohammad.

TOPIC. An important social pointer which demonstrates how we must defend free speech at all costs, is seen in the fact that most 'former Muslims' who speak criticially about their former faith, have to do so under assumed names and protected identities.

Such is not the case with former Christians. Bart Ehrman being a prime example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

This bloke has 'been there done that' re evangelical Christianity, former pastor, Moody Bible institute (they don't come much more 'Bible Believing' than Moody) Now.. he campaigns widely against evangelical faith.
No death threats.. no phyical attacks.. still uses real name.. is not in hiding. We are 'going after him' though :) our method -DEBATE.
(Dr James White is scheduled to 'murder' him in debate later this year)
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=1286

It is still a point of wonder, Boaz, that you cannot see any connection between the violence you describe, and the daily evidence of the impact of religious conflicts of every kind, around the world.

>>Mohammad Buyeri's killing Theo Van Goghs... Mohammads ordering the murder of a Jewish poet Ka'b bin Al Ashraf<<

I realise that you don't accept that Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland have been fighting each other for centuries, nor do you accept that the Crusades had any religious foundation, or even overtones.

I suspect that you place the blame for carnage that followed the partition of India on the British, rather than on any religious leanings on the part of the population.

You probably consider the friction between Sunni and Shia to be political in nature, and nothing at all to do with their interpretation of their religion.

But to those who consider religion itself to be the problem, there is no significant difference between an Catholic execution of a Protestant, and the examples you provide.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2859501.ece

"It took almost half an hour for Paul to die. Every major bone in his body was broken. During the execution, he cried for mercy."

Religion does strange things to people. It allows them to suspend their humanity, allegedly in the name of their God, and perform unspeakable acts in that name.

It doesn't matter how many times you bluster "it's not what Jesus wanted", the fact remains that his religion, as well as others, is used as an excuse for murder somewhere in the world, every single day of the year.

By their actions let them be judged.

Dan,

I did read the article. Indeed I read the entire act. The key comment to pay attention to is that there are circumstances where abortion is lawful. Therefore your claim that abortionists should be jailed is incorrect.

Runner,

Please stop embarrassing yourself. You claimed that someone wanted to put Christians in jail. That is clearly and obviously a demonstrable falsehood. I stated that bible believing Christians are deserving and will receive ridicule and that they are possibly dangerous. But nobody in the entire discussion suggested they should be jailed on account of being fundamentalist Christians. However if and when they start bombing abortion clinics or gassing Jews in the name of the Saviour then too right they should go taken away from civil society.

Why can't you just admit you were wrong? What is wrong with your brain or moral reasoning that makes the admission of error so hard? It's not really that hard. Here's an example: "Oh OK, I was wrong. Nobody wrote that Biblical Christians should be put in jail". It's that easy.

Last night I attended a meeting of the "Sea of Faith" to hear Rick Barker speak on "The Godly Delusions of Richard Dawkins: The Darwina Codes". The somewhat harsh title contrasted with rather convivial in content and discussed the differenced between "Darwinism" and "scientist" as an ideology versus the actual scientific contributions of Darwin and the facts and theories of the evolution.

During the question time after the presentation a woman made the claims that there have been (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html) no observed instances of speciation and that there are (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates) no intermediate fossils. I suggested to the questioner that this was not the case and that references could be provided, the person got up from their chair, put their hands over their ears and started to make for the door saying 'No, I don't want to hear it! I don't want to know!.

She reminded me a lot of you.

Lev,

My contention (no more and no less) is that anyone who commits serious crime should be jailed.

You claim to have read the whole Crimes Act. Are you a lawyer, a criminal, or did you just read it for fun?

If you have read it, then you would know what saying is correct. (Illegal) abortion is still listed as a crime.

If this was not the case, why were Labor in Victoria discussing decriminalising abortion?

(He talks about people putting their fingers in their ears!)

Dan,

The Victorian Crimes Act is readily available. As someone who used to be somewhat involved in political activity as the policy convenor for a faction of the ALP and a member of several policy committees (including a three year stint as President of one) I occassionally have a look at legislation.

Obviously illegal abortion is a crime (by definition); and, as I stated, there are cases when abortion is legal. The legal system is not always a yes or no situation. Some laws and circumstances are given precedence over others.

The decriminalisation of abortion is simply part of this process.

Regards,

KatieO "You are trampling all over the freedom of expression that the UNHRC was set up to protect. "

Can you please explain how by suggesting that I think a balance is missed with this work I'm trampling all over freedom of expression?

I've not called for it to be banned, rather pointed out that it appears to me (in the absense of better information) that the purpose of the piece was to offend and that I think freedom of expression like most freedom's carries with it responsibility.

I'm sure that most of us could think of some images involving loved ones that we would consider it inappropriate for someone else to create and put on public display.

I don't think legislation is an appropriate solution but responsibility and respect should play a greater role in discussion of freedom of expression. Those of us who do value it should perhaps take care not to applaud those who abuse that freedom just because others who don't much like freedom have opposed something.

R0bert