Apr 26, 2012
Print This Post
A Western Kentucky University art professor and her student are defending what pro-life students are calling an act of desecration and vandalism after the student draped hundreds of condoms on top of crosses displayed in a pro-life exhibit.
FOLLOW TODD ON FACEBOOK! CLICK HERE.
The crosses were part of a university-sanctioned display by Hilltopper’s For Life. A member of the group actually captured student Elaina Smith as she and another person placed condoms on many of the 3,700 crosses. She reportedly told the pro-lifers that the desecration was part of a class art project.
Smith was asked to stop and when she refused, they called Western Kentucky’s campus police. The police refused to stop the cross desecration, telling the pro-life students that it was a First Amendment issue.
Smith’s project was reportedly for Professor Kristina Arnold’s class. Arnold told television station WBKO that she did not disprove of the idea and that she “encourages learning.”
“Learning and debating are not always pretty or polite processes,” she wrote in a statement to the television station. “Critical engagement with ideas can get messy.”
Kristen Hawkins, the executive director for Students For Life, told Fox News that she was shocked that a university professor would condone vandalism.
“I think it’s outrageous the university professor would say this,” Hawkins said. “For the university and the professor to write this off as not being a big deal – this is pretty shocking. It’s shocking they would not be willing to stand up for the rights of their students.”
Hawkins provided Fox News with a copy of an email that Smith sent defending her actions.
“I stand by my actions,” Smith wrote. “I do not believe that I impeded anyone else’s freedom of expression. I did not break any laws. I did not damage any property. I voluntarily removed the condoms even though I was not required to do so.”
Western Kentucky released a statement calling the incident “disrespectful symbolism.” The university also said the Smith apologizing – something she denied in the email and to local media.
“I do not feel that I should apologize for attempting to exercise the freedoms that we are all entitled to,” she wrote.
The Hilltoppers For Life are now represented by the Alliance Defense Fund. They’ve sent a letter to the university demanding answers and an official apology.
“It appears that several WKU officials knew this vandalism would occur, did nothing to stop it, and allowed it to continue,” wrote attorney Travis Barham. “Our clients were exercising their First Amendment rights, and it is the duty of WKU officials to protect those freedoms, not passively allow them to be violated.”
The Alliance Defense Fund sent a list of eight demands to the university. In addition to a public apology, they also want to know who purchased and supplied Smith with 3,700 condoms. They also want assurances that the student will be punished for her act of vandalism.
“At a public university, ‘critical engagement’ also involves respecting the free speech rights of fellow students, something Ms. Smith and Dr. Arnold both missed,” Barham wrote.
A university spokesman told Fox News that to their knowledge, the incident is closed.
Related posts:
FOX News Talk
Lets see how the university feels about putting a condom over a Koran.
Perfect post! We have allowed the 60's hippies corrupt our entire education system, top to bottom, over the past 40 years, and now we pay the price. We always thought some things were absolute ("Truth, justice, and the American way," for those old enough to remember), but sadly we find out all is relative and dependent upon the favor of the PC elite.
Perfect post! We have allowed the 60's hippies corrupt our entire education system, top to bottom, over the past 40 years, and now we pay the price. We always thought some things were absolute ("Truth, justice, and the American way," for those old enough to remember), but sadly we find out all is relative and dependent upon the favor of the PC elite.
That is exactly what I was thinking. The "Professor" and her students wouldn't have the courage to do that, now would they?
That is what I was thinking. If she wants to edgy and provocative that is the way to go. Christian symbols are trashed so much nowadays it isn't even shocking anymore and it is so overdone.
Oh, they would never touch the Koran. The sensibilities of Muslims need to be stroked and protected at every turn but CHristians can have their symbols mocked without remorse.
The sickness that has infested academia in our day and time makes me stomach turn sometimes.
Vince Murphy Great post and so honest. They were a problem in the 60's and then they got into politics.
Susan Yon Ludwig Watson , of course they wouldn't! They only target Christians because we are forgiving and turn the other cheek. They feel no threat, so they maliciously attack us all that they want. Like a woman who beats on a man because she knows he won't hit a woman. They wouldn't dare desecrate an item of Islamic faith because they would have to fear for themselves. Atheists are the biggest cowards and wimps on Earth.
Vince Murphy DAMN FITHLY HIPPIES!!!!
Probably just fine because it'd be incredibly obvious that they acted hypocritically if they treated one religion differently from another. Also placing a condom on the Koran would be like placing a condom on the Holy Bible, not on a cross. So really not the most apt comparison.
Religion is OPEN SEASON for the ObumA Administration. Along with Oil, coal and natural gas. Just watch your electric bill if the EPA gets their way!
Oh man there getting us from all sides in every direction! I talk to people all the time out here that just flat out gave up already its a shame because thats what the government wants. Thnks rob keep the news rolling man.
About time.
About time.
Timothy Wayne Hutchinson, just as I thought. You cheer the decline and destruction of America. You are a true liberal nutjob.
Timothy Wayne Hutchinson, just as I thought. You cheer the decline and destruction of America. You are a true liberal nutjob.
…and you pray to the monsters that make $104 million dollars a day of pure profit, while being subsidized by tax payers, and STILL overcharging at the pump and polluting like crazy. Those are YOUR heroes. What good Christians.
I bet god can smell the stink rising up from this counrty……
And it smells a great deal like Sodom and Gomorrha.
Richard Hendrix
And if God doesn't do something soon. I expect he'll owe S&G an apology!
Richard Hendrix, it's worse. The liberals want to turn this country into a modern day ancient Rome. They glorify all of the same activities and attributes that made up the malice and debauchery of Rome under Caligula.
Honestly, this is exactly how I would expect atheist fascists to behave. This is simply another case of them forcing thier viewpoints down the throats of anyone unfortunate enough to be in earshot/eyeshot of them. They trample upon others right to free expression. If they had put up the crosses & topped them with condoms, I would have no issue. Rather, they "shout over" other peoples right to free expression.
They a vile breed of hypocrit.
*they are a vile breed of hypocrite. Sorry
*they are a vile breed of hypocrite. Sorry
Actually there is no duty not to shout over someone if they are speaking either. The 1st amendment is not enforceable against other private citizens either, it is enforceable against the federal govt and the states via the 14th.
The cops were 100% correct; this has nothing to do with them because it is a 1st amendment issue which means they cannot interfere when two groups of people are lawfully exercising this freedom.
Actually there is no duty not to shout over someone if they are speaking. In exercising my freedom to speak I can shout over you. Furthermore, the 1st amendment is not enforceable against other private citizens anyway, it is enforceable against the federal govt and the states via the 14th.
The cops were 100% correct; this has nothing to do with them because it is a 1st amendment issue which means they cannot interfere when two groups of people are lawfully exercising this freedom.
Dan Young Wrong Dan. As a former police officer, I can tell you Ms. Smith should have been arrested.
George Richard Oh this ought to be good, what relevant, applicable case law can you cite that proves that these people could have been arrested? If the police themselves are saying they can't interfere I'm hardly going to take the word of a self-proclaimed "former police officer"
Except when you are vandalizing another's property it is no longer a free speech issue. No matter if you consider the property to be that of Western Kentucky University orof Hilltoppers For Life, an act of vandalism occured. I cannot go onto your property and place a cross in your yard nor can you go to your local government office and spray paint over their sign. You are correct that the 1st amendment only applies to the government intrusion on an individual's rights but there are also free speech rights within each state's constitution as well as local laws. So if the police deemed that it was breaking a free speech right of the Hilltoppers for Life group then yes they could have stepped in but either way other crimes were committed with this act.
Actually you are completely contradicting yourself. You say, it "isn't" a 1st amendment issue because it's private citizens. Then you say it "is" a 1st amendment issue because it's 2 groups of people exercising expression. Which is it?
Let me give you a little lesson from a law enforcement and law student perspective. The 1st amendment is designed to stop gov't interference with freedoms of expression. Therefore, this ISN'T a 1st amendment issue. This was a private display allowed to be erected in a certain area. Since both parties to this are private citizens, under criminal law, this is vandalism. A citable offense for which WKU Police obviously don't understand the penal code definition. You are NOT allowed to deface any private display of another person without their permission.
Tim Rodman It is a first amendment issue in terms of the Police officers but the 1st does not apply against private citizens so objecting to the condoms on the basis of the 1st does not constitute a valid legal argument.
You are correct that if there is an applicable criminal law that is consistent with the 1st amendment then they can be punished. However, this is not an act of vandalism. It is an interference with someone else's property but that does not mean it is a criminal offense.
After all why haven't they been charged if the vandalism law applied?
Dan Young First of all, she was vandalizing property that belonged to someone else, therefore violating their rights. Secondly, just because campus police refused to do anything doesn't mean they were right, it means they are puppets of the school administration. Common courtesy and respect has suffered greatly because of people like you, Ms. Smith, and the professor. You show your true colors, Dan, and they are dirty.
Dan Young First of all, she was vandalizing property that belonged to someone else, therefore violating their rights. Secondly, just because campus police refused to do anything doesn't mean they were right, it means they are puppets of the school administration. Common courtesy and respect has suffered greatly because of people like you, Ms. Smith, and the professor. You show your true colors, Dan, and they are dirty.
George Richard Vandalism is a legal term so unless you can provide an applicable criminal law that would cover their conduct (remember they did not damage the crosses) then you still have no argument.
Dan Young
The police had no 1st amendment issue in arresting her. It is vandalism under the penal code. This was damage of property with appropriate mens rea. By your definition they were still guilty of trespass (interfering with one's rights of possessory interest). By your definition, anyone can go on anyone else's property and do whatever in the name of free speech. This is just not the case. I'm specialized in criminal law…I wouldn't doubt my answer.
Simply because WKU police have done nothing does not mean it isn't an offence. That's like saying an officer never lets anyone out of a speeding ticket or curfew violation. That argument would get you eaten alive in court my friend.
Dan Young Dan, Toilet papering someone's house (something you would probably do) doesn't do damage, but it's still vandalisim, and yes, you could be arrested. Dan, you're young, inexperienced, and like to argue…you'll grow up one day. Hang in there.
Tim Rodman Could you please cite the section of the penal code you are relying on because so far the closest I've found is criminal mischief which requires DAMAGE to property.
As for trespass, this is probably a civil trespass to property but it is not necessarily a criminal offense. To be considered a crime it must be in the penal code obviously. Once again can you cite the section of the penal code you are relying on.
Dan Young Well then, they won't notice when I shoot y0u in the lips for fing with my work, will they scum bag?
Dan Young
Kentucky Penal Code 512.040 Criminal Mischief (ie vandalism). Person is guilty of criminal mischeif in the 3rd degree if they have no right or no reasonable ground to believe they have a right and they intentionally or wantonly deface, destroy or damage any property. This was DEFACING private property.
Arguing with you is like arguing with any other liberal (aka brick wall). It's never right unless YOU think it's right. Well buddy, I just proved you wrong. Can't argue with something written in a statutory code.
Tim Rodman Umm no it wasn't defacing. How about you look up a dictionary first before you gloat.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/deface
Tim Rodman Umm no it wasn't defacing. How about you look up a dictionary first before you gloat.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/deface
Tim Rodman In fact I'm disappointed. Statutory interpretation 101 would tell you that the surrounding words color the interpretation of others. Destroy and Damage already imply that it must be irreversible and the dictionary definition of deface supports that interpretation.
Dan Young , So Dan let me get this right. If you were to put up an art project and someone came by and covered it up and said that is my freedom of speech right to do so that person would not be infringing on your freedom of speech. Seems to me you are inviting chaos and that is when society falls on its face. You have to respect an opinion and to do so means not infringing on anothers right to make a statment. If you wnat to make a statment use your own project do not be so lazy to use someone elses work. Besides that art student and professorare so full of BS about what they were doing how can anyone fall for the lines they just put out.
Larry Osburn Yeah because you've assumed there a duty not express myself if it would interfere with another's free expression. That is just not true; I can shout over you and I can cover up your project provided I don't damage it in any way.
Dan Young
You use a dictionary, I use the penal code. Penal code trumps in court over the dictionary everytime. The appellate court might disagree but the trial court goes by the code.
Where did you go to law school again? Oh that's right, you probably haven't. It isn't wise to argue with someone who has and has also worked in law enforcement. Like I said, arguing with a brick wall. Any person can google search a word. Plus, you likely didn't read alternate interpretations or numerous other dictionaries for cross reference. Bad research and bad arguments. LOOK at the article…even the attorney there calls it vandalism. I've got better things to do than to argue with ignorance and stubborn-minded liberals.
Tim Rodman We're both using the penal code but you're claiming that deface means something which according to a dictionary it doesn't. Therefore, the burden is on you to explain why the legal definition "deface" applies to completely reversible interferences like this.
Actually if you want cross references let's have a look:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deface
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deface
You clearly don't know what you're talking about because it took you that long to identify that the only relevant law was criminal mischief which I had stated earlier anyway. So provide a Kentucky case that determined that deface includes completely reversible interferences.
Dan Young Do not confuse the First Amendment right to free speech with vandalism of someone else's property. The campus police wouldn't do anything because they are just security guards. They are not "cops".
Had actual Police Officers responded, they would have arrested the professor for vandalism. She did not own the property that she vandalized.
Your posts, of those I have seen, indicated to me that you most likely partake in illegal substances before you get on these boards and respond. Mr. Velosi's post was intelligent and well thought out, while yours made no sense at all.
Dan Young Like to see try.
Catherine Martin Catherine Martin Under the Kentucky Penal code the issue is whether there is criminal mischief since there is no general vandalism section.
From a look at the ordinary meaning of the words in that section it requires an irreversible interference i.e. damage to property. So whilst I agree that a criminal law may be applicable, there just isn't one. But feel free to find one
Dan Young It doesn't require damage to property when someone messes with said property to be considered vandalism. It doesn't require "physical injury" to be considered "assault".
Dan Young — She was guilty of littering. That IS a police matter.
Dan Young – you are wrong – put placing the condoms on the pro-life artwork they were then plagarizing the work that went into it. You do not have that right. Yes, you may speak over me but you may not take my words and work use them without my permission.
Dan Young – you are wrong – put placing the condoms on the pro-life artwork they were then plagarizing the work that went into it. You do not have that right. Yes, you may speak over me but you may not take my words and work use them without my permission.
Dan Young – you are wrong – put placing the condoms on the pro-life artwork they were then plagarizing the work that went into it. You do not have that right. Yes, you may speak over me but you may not take my words and work use them without my permission.
Dan Young – you are wrong – put placing the condoms on the pro-life artwork they were then plagarizing the work that went into it. You do not have that right. Yes, you may speak over me but you may not take my words and work use them without my permission.
Dan Young – you are wrong – put placing the condoms on the pro-life artwork they were then plagarizing the work that went into it. You do not have that right. Yes, you may speak over me but you may not take my words and work use them without my permission.
Dan Young
One thing you'd expect in a university, and that's respect for the creativity of others, and the products of that creativity. Trashing the artwork of others hardly rises to that level
Dan Young
One thing you'd expect in a university, and that's respect for the creativity of others, and the products of that creativity. Trashing the artwork of others hardly rises to that level
Dan Young
One thing you'd expect in a university, and that's respect for the creativity of others, and the products of that creativity. Trashing the artwork of others hardly rises to that level
Dan Young
One thing you'd expect in a university, and that's respect for the creativity of others, and the products of that creativity. Trashing the artwork of others hardly rises to that level
Dan Young
One thing you'd expect in a university, and that's respect for the creativity of others, and the products of that creativity. Trashing the artwork of others hardly rises to that level
Dan Young , You prove a certain Ronald Reagan quote to be true "It isn't that liberals are ignorant, it is that they know so much that just isn't so.". You have NO idea what you are talking about. The 1st Amendment refers to protection from the government, but other citizens are not allowed to infringe on or try to silence the rights of other citizens. You can't be a law unto yourself. Geez…. explaining the Constitution to a liberal is like talking to a box filled with rocks.
Dan Young Speaking of quotes, here is one FROM YOUR OWN LIBERAL MOUTH.
"You are free to do so. What you are not free to do is stop other private citizens lawfully exercising their right to freedom of expression."
So, it works this way when it suits your ideology, but when it doesn't you instantly and vehemently pull a 180? What a pathetic liberal atheist TROLL.
Dan Young Why haven't they been charged? Probably for the same reason that the campus police didn't charge Sandusky. Ignorance and lack of jewels.
Dan Young It was CAMPUS SECURITY ma'am BIG difference from a police officer.
Dan Young
If you are shouting over someone else that is speaking that makes you a spoiled 3 year old. That is the age that most people are taught that civil discourse requires both sides to listen to and discuss ideas with others, even though you may strongly disagree. Grow up.
Dan Young
You are among the 1%ers who doesn't think this was vandalism.
Punn intended.
They have every right to express thier opinion. They do NOT have the right to do it by spray painting over mine.
That is simply incorrect.. the 1st amendment freedom of expression is not enforceable against other private citizens, it is enforceable against the federal govt and the states via the 14th.
Dan Young, they do not have the right to VANDALIZE. It is not even a free speech issue at all.
Dan Young
Once again…this is defined as vandalism under the penal codes of the States.
Mike Fernandes If it fits the definition of vandalism under Kentucky law then why haven't they be charged. I do not doubt that they interfered with someone else's property but that does not necessarily make it a criminal offense. You will have to cite the exact law they broke and explain why it applies.
Dan Young Get your facts straight. Vandalism is vandalism. As my father always said, "your freedom ends at the tip of my nose." You destroy me or what is mine and you have infringed on my freedom. That is exactly what they did on the other persons property.
Catherine Drinkwater II I think you should just learn to read. Where does it state that they DAMAGED anyone's property?
I would agree that criminal mischief laws, which are roughly the equivalent of vandalism under Kentucky's penal code would be applicable if they had damaged or in some way irreversibly defaced the crosses. They just didn't so you have no argument.
Dan Young It is defintely enforceable, come put condoms on my work scum bag, lets see what happens.
Dan Young As I have stated before, which you obviously can't seem to fathom-It doesn't require damage to property when someone messes with said property to be considered vandalism. It doesn't require "physical injury" to be considered "assault".
Dan Young — Littering is a misdemeanor.
Dan Young – correct – but laws against theft of intellectual property can be inforced. – You lose.
Dan Young
Those must be powerful bananas you're smokin'
Dan Young , it's funny watching you hop back and forth between saying that people can't infringe on others free speech rights "You are free to do so. What you are not free to do is stop other private citizens lawfully exercising their right to freedom of expression." Quoted from your own mouth in reference to protecting the expression of planned parenthood supporters. Yet when it comes to the 1st Amendment rights of those who hold different views than your own… you say that people can prevent the free expression of others. To explain to you AGAIN, the 1st Amendment is a protection from the government BUT private citizens can NOT intentionally PREVENT others from exercising their own rights. The 1st Amendment is NOT a right to VANDALISM.
Dan Young If anything Dan Ms. Smith "damaged" the message and the intent of the message and in some peoples eyes, namely the group that put the crosses up, the sanctity of the crosses.
They have every right to express thier opinion. They do NOT have the right to do it by spray painting over mine.
atheist fascists, liberals.
I dare these mental midgets to burn a koran in the middle of campus as an expression of free speech and see how far they get. Tolerant left my butt.
It is a response to the intolerant right. If these thumpers can stake out a chunk of a university set up an exhibit to preach fire and brimstone and condemnation, they should not be cry babies about a smart aleck prank that did not cause any major damage or hurt anyone. People always use the same, tired old "If that was a Koran…" line, well it wasn't, deal with it. If they want the culprit punished, fine…just don't start in with the holy war garbage. Not every body believes in the hippie zombie that you say will send us to hell if we don't bow and swallow.
Timothy Wayne Hutchinson , Oh stuff it. No one is listening to your BS. The intolerance is on the left and it's obvious. Just look at the way YOU are talking RIGHT NOW. You are being 100% intolerant. The responses from the other viewpoint however are focused on promoting tolerance and pointing out the hypocrisy of people like yourself. You even made up your own little fictional story about someone preaching condemnation in the display area. You're a sad and vicious individual. I pray that the darkness will leave your heart some day soon and that you find the error of your hateful ways.
Matt Henson, good luck. The whole point of the display was to CONDEMN abortion, and those who support abortion rights. If you insist on shoving that trash in my face on a college campus, expect venom in return.
Timothy Wayne Hutchinson , Oh no! Someone believes something you don't and you had to SEE it when you were LOOKING at it! What a travesty! How DARE someone have an opinion different than your own! No one shoved anything in your face, you'd have to shove it in your OWN face. Which I don't doubt. Liberals like yourself love nothing more than the feeling of being OFFENDED. And no one offends you, you offend yourselves. And the display can condemn abortion all it wants. Did they go and paint crosses all over a pro-abortion display? No they didn't. You are the weakest link, goodbye!
Timothy Wayne Hutchinson , Oh no! Someone believes something you don't and you had to SEE it when you were LOOKING at it! What a travesty! How DARE someone have an opinion different than your own! No one shoved anything in your face, you'd have to shove it in your OWN face. Which I don't doubt. Liberals like yourself love nothing more than the feeling of being OFFENDED. And no one offends you, you offend yourselves. And the display can condemn abortion all it wants. Did they go and paint crosses all over a pro-abortion display? No they didn't. You are the weakest link, goodbye!
Timothy Wayne Hutchinson , when did you gain enough intelligence to even make a stupid statement??
Timothy Wayne Hutchinson , when did you gain enough intelligence to even make a stupid statement??
I'm even slightly offended, but I'm sick to death of it. This whole past year, all you ever see is Jesus this, Catholic that, Evangelicals saying they are the the awesomist, Mormons saying they are awesomer… and each one thinks the other is going to hell. I FOLD, and refuse to take part, but that does not stop them from barking and preaching at me. So what, a custodian had to bust out the bigger rubber gloves to pull a few jimmy hats off some pro-life display. I thought it was funny and clever shot at stupid, 1950's birth control debates going on. Your holy-roller "hate-crime" gibberish is ridiculous.
Well, it was kind of "shoved in our face," because it was a huge display. You say your concerns are for free speech and tolerance of dissenting viewpoints. Well, that's exactly what the other side is concerned about, the exercise of free speech and the right to respond to a highly political statement in a public arena in a non-violent, non-destructive way.
And no, burning a Koran would not be the same [it would be destructive, for one thing, and probably done in hate, as opposed to contributing to a Pro-life discussion with a Pro-Contraception statement].
Matt Henson Actually,I was listening to Mr.Hutchinsons BS. His BS makes a lot more sense to me than your BS. Funny how that works…
Timothy Wayne Hutchinson OK…how about this…can I pee (a natural and organic act) on the Earth First display on the college campus or on the statue of Susan Anthony in the town square? None are private property and each of my donations are biodegradable. Can we place condoms over all the door handles at Planned Parenthood as a reminder of an artistic choice or display a burning cross across the street (on private property) from of the local black AME church? What if I wish to display a swastika across the street from the local Jewish temple. If you are OK with these…I am way good.
Matt is correct…it is time for the left to grow up. If they can dish it out…they should be mature enough to recognize the immaturity of their own actions and take the heat for the immature choices they make. Grownups do not need to produce an overt inane act just so they can APPEAR to be iconoclastic for the sake of being iconoclastic.
Go ahead, but except whatever backlash comes with it.
Brian K. Lohr, go ahead, pee all you want. Burn crosses and paint swastikas on stuff, that is not to far off from what Tea Baggers do anyway. But if you break the law, you have to answer to the law, and if your going to spout off about your political views on a college campus, expect backlash from those who disagree, don't cry about it and gimmie this "war on religion" crap. Nobody is getting fed to any lions here. And DON"T EVEN try to tell me your ilk does not dish… how many people have you accused of communism, immorality, and "hating America" today alone?
Timothy Wayne Hutchinson Actually Timothy the article states that she removed them herself. There were not any university custodian that had to remove the condoms.
Good for her. If they want to punish her more, give her a littering ticket. But to push for felony vandalism or hate crime prosecution is retarded (yeah I used the "R" word, for all those who said I was a hyper-sensitive PC blah blah blah).
Timothy Wayne Hutchinson It isn't littering unless she left them there…which she didn't.
And once again…the liberals only tolerate opinion that agrees with their own…based on the hatred spewed in these posts. 'Liberal' is such a misnomer … 'Hater' is a much better label.
And once again…the liberals only tolerate opinion that agrees with their own…based on the hatred spewed in these posts. 'Liberal' is such a misnomer … 'Hater' is a much better label.
Great idea Timothy! I saw, let's replace the symbol of the rainbow (an obvious religious symbol) with a chocolate covered phallic symbol. This is the true picture of gay pride…and post these on a college campus.
We can celebrate bending over and shoving things…but cannot make a move to protect the most innocent in our society? My guess: You would have been right beside the folks in Wilhelmshaven who watched their Jewish neighbors marched off for 'special treatment'…without saying a word. Your blind religious faith in liberalism will be your undoing Tim.
What are babbling about, wacko? 6 months, and that is all you can come up with? You seem fixated on phalli and the shoving of things up butts. It is okay, Brian. You can come out now, there is no shame in being who you really are. And Tracy, buddy, I am a proud hater. I would much rather be called a hater than a liberal. So, what's up these days? Is Mormonism still a cult? Is Romney still too liberal?
So let me see if I understand this correctly. If I go to the local Lowes or Home Depot and buy several cans of spray paint and spray graffiti all over the house of Professor Arnold's house they can't do anything to me because it would violate my First Amendment rights? And I could do the same thing to Miss Smith's car? After all, in the words of the professor, “critical engagement with ideas can get messy.”.
At least make the effort to find an analogous example. If you spray graffiti over someone's house you are:
1) Trespassing
2) Committing wilful damage (the paint cannot be removed I assume)
Dan Young, this was someones property that the University sanctioned to be on the campus. If an artist displayed their painting somewhere on campus that the university allowed someone cannot then desicrate that painting, otherwise they are destroying someone else's personal property.
Mike Fernandes Do you have any evidence that they damaged the crosses? From the facts as presented in the article they didn't
Dan Young However Dan, if you willfully trespass on property then you can be arrested. By the university willfully sanctioning the placement of crosses the property now became non-public. If you look at other instances where this has happened, (removal etc) the action was considered trespassing. The same that would have happened it the professors class became so full of students not in the class that she could not teach. Supporting such actions means that you would not mind if a display you had set up was surrounded and toilet papered because it can be removed.
Dan Young desecration is often included under damage. removability has nothing to do with it
Dan Young Whether or not they damaged it, it is vandalism of an artwork. Do you really feel that an art professor should be advocating vandalizing artwork. If the art professor in question had a self portrait on display behind a glass plate would it be ok for me to draw mustache and horns on the glass with a dry erase marker? What about choice words about what I thought of the artist?
Vince Castellana There is no applicable criminal law that applies to this case because even criminal mischief requires some form of damage to be done i.e. it must be irreversible.
Paul Eddy That makes no sense. If they gave them a right to exclude others then the campus police would have arrested them. Since the police didn't and the University is taking no action it is ridiculous to assert that their license to exhibit their crosses included a right to exclude others which is a prerequisite for claiming trespass.
Dan Young What am I doing if I shoot them in the lips when I catch them, messing with my work, lefty? We have a little less patience with you scum bags, daily.
No. That would be causing damage to their property. None of the crosses were damaged, and all the condoms were removed. There is a huge difference between what they did and your ideas for protest.
Dan Young – hey, the crosses were for a grade – looking at the rest of your comments you appear to be one of these ideologues that don't have a clue about the real world or living in a polite and law abiding society.
Vandalism is just that, vandalism – regardless if some college teacher ‘sanctions’ it. You, like that college teacher, and the so called loser artist/ vandal Elaina Smith need to stay in the basements at school or your Mom's – just stay away from the real world where people RESPECT other’s property and work.
Dan Young As a Christian, I would consider placing a condom on a cross, damaging it in a most disrespectful way. Just because some prodeath liberal doesn't agree, does not give them the right under the first Admendment to behateful toward my God and religion.
Dan Young What the professor and her student did was
1) Trespassing and
2) Committing willful damage
I thought his analogy was perfect and fitting punishment for the crime.
Xena Roche Actually, it does. The First Amendment is meant to protect speech that one may find offensive. As long as the speech does not promote violence or threats it is protected. I don't agree with what they did either, but they did not do any damage, and removed the condoms. Instead of arguing about the art project lets have an adult conversation about the issue itself.
Dan Young – In response to your question: "Do you have any evidence that they damaged the crosses?" Yes, the evidence is clear. The spent time and money on a display formally sanctioned by the university. Vandalism is a crime and this specific vandalism was not formally sanctioned by the university. It caused harm to Hilltopper's for Life because it changed the message of the sanctioned display. The legal (and more mature) way to counter a display you disagree with would be to apply for your own sanctioned display and spend the time and money to set it up.
Dan Young They were not her crosses, so can't be her art project!
To everyone who is arguing with Dan, ignore him. He's trying to pick a fight on here, and as long as you reply to him, he'll keep coming back.
Dan Young
So you'd be OK to tie condoms – 3700 or so, on the professors car while its on the university property?
Dan Young , that IS an analogous example. Trespassing has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment and is a seperate issue. And the student also comitted willful damage. It doesn't matter if the condoms and lube can be removed… so can the paint. Vandalism is vandalism. The student went and vandalised the display of another student with maliciousness. That isn't freedom of expression, it is an intentional attempt to infringe on the freedom of expression/religion of someone else. It is clear cut… but then again you know what they say; Arguing with a liberal is like playing chess with a pigeon. It doesn't matter how good at chess you are, the pigeon will just knock over the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it is victorious. That's you, Dan, you are that liberal pigeon.
Paul Robinson That'd actually be really funny. It reminds me of a prank we pulled on a friend in high school. One day during lunch we went outside and covered his entire minivan with multi color post it notes. He was furious when he found out. I view this as a similar stunt. No harm, no foul. Maybe if people relaxed a bit, had a sense of humor we could have civil discourse. If this happened to me, and there was no damage done to the crosses, I would probably shake their hand. Tying that many condoms to crosses is quite an undertaking. I'd have a laugh about it, and then offer to sit down and have a discussion about our difference in opinion. Maybe create a campus wide event to have discussion. Instead people have to get in a huff, get mad and freak out.
Dan Young OK…how about this…can I pee (a natural and organic act) on the Earth First display on the college campus or on the statue of Susan Anthony in the town square? None are private property and each of my donations are biodegradable. Can we place condoms over all the door handles at Planned Parenthood as a reminder of an artistic choice or display a burning cross across the street (on private property) from of the local black AME church? What if I wish to display a swastika across the street from the local Jewish temple. If you are OK with these…I am way good.
Dan Young …yes, they did. They damaged the intellectual property and idea being conveyed to achieve their own ends. Of course, since you agree with the descrecration and not with the original idea, that will not make any sense to you.
Absolutely pathetic behavior by Smith and WKU. Based on this ludicrous activity, I should place 3,700 paper crosses at each planned parenthood (pp) event and every pro-choice event! speaking of pp, planning happens before pregnancy; not after.
You are free to do so. What you are not free to do is stop other private citizens lawfully exercising their right to freedom of expression.
Dan Young You are incorrect there as well. You are not free to do so as has been shown in many many cases against people standing outside handing out leaflets etc.
Dan Young Seriously kid…get a copy of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution and read it before you make yourself look any stupider than you already have.
Dan Young – which is exactly what this student did by plagarizing the existing artwork. You still lose.
Dan Young – which is exactly what this student did by plagarizing the existing artwork. You still lose.
Dan Young – which is exactly what this student did by plagarizing the existing artwork. You still lose.
Dan Young – which is exactly what this student did by plagarizing the existing artwork. You still lose.
Dan Young – which is exactly what this student did by plagarizing the existing artwork. You still lose.
Dan Young – which is exactly what this student did by plagarizing the existing artwork. You still lose.
Catherine Drinkwater II Actually, it was ruled that the people handing out leaflets were within their Constitutional rights. The problem is that Dan here and those like him want the 1st Amendment applied to THEM in this way but not to people they disagree with. Like all liberals, he wants unequal application of the law.
Dan Young – Your right to freedom of expression ends at my stuff. After that it becomes your freedom of recovery. Smugness will work even less and less effectively in the future. People are just tired of the attitudes of those who "seem to know better than the rest of us".
Dan Young if you shout fire in a movie and there is none which causes a panic and many paying customers are injured is that what you call freedom of speech???
Dan Young if you shout fire in a movie and there is none which causes a panic and many paying customers are injured is that what you call freedom of speech???
Dan Young , true. BUT the crosses were set to deliver a message, the "author's", freedom of speech was violated by Ms. Smith. It was Students For Life's project, their effort, and their crosses, and ultimately their message. So, if I am not mistaken, this could be considered an act of vandalism AND desecration of a religious symbol. If, for example, the crosses were Stars of David or pedestals with Korans on them this type of disrespect of those holy symbols would probably fall within a hate crime. At the minimum anti-Semitic.
Amen.
Dan Young must be hiding after making a careless comment and misapplying law. I must add that besides the vandalism, Smith's actions and WKU's inaction was completely disrespectful.
Catherine Drinkwater II Could you please provide some information on cases decided this way? A cursory search has led me only to those such as Planned Parenthood v. Wilson where protesters were not allowed to block or slow cars from entering the private parking lot of a medical center because of the fact that it was not a public place such as a sidewalk. As a law student, I am honestly curious as to whether courts have ever held that way. Thank you.
Matt Henson that comment (generalizing all "liberals," however you define that group) makes you sound so much more tolerant as those you are criticizing. There are many people in this country who respect the right of those they disagree with to express their opinion just as much as they respect that right for those with whom they share ideals. I didn't search for every single comment he made, but I did not notice anywhere that Dan Young stated the pro-life group should not have been allowed to put out the crosses. I am highly offended when I see such displays (even though I have never been in a position where I had to decide whether or not to get an abortion nor do I feel I would have an abortion, and I wish that more would be done to lower the number of abortions performed in this country through better sex education and teaching children to respect themselves, their dates, and their bodies, including for religious reasons) BUT I in no way, shape, or form think the laws should be construed to disallow them, regardless of how much I might personally wish they would not be placed in public spaces.
Save your breath. Folks infected with a liberal religion, like Dan, are incapable of having linear or rational thought.
Like to hear what Alumni think. Is this really the school they want to support. Let's drop a Koran in a jar of urine……how about a Star of David around the neck of a pig. Art….my ass….freedom of expression….you don't want to see my freedom of expression.
Free speech includes the freedom to offend so yea they have no legal basis for objecting but of course just like the pro-lifers they can object morally for all the good it will do them lol
Dan Young hey Dan…..stick it in your ass dick breath
John Prete Typical right winger, cannot come up with a logical rebuttal so has to resort to insults.
John Prete Typical right winger, cannot come up with a logical rebuttal so has to resort to insults.
Dan Young : a stupid young democrat. What else needs to be explained.
Dan Young Dan Your logic is missing. TP her house as an art investment see what happens. When the University allowed the crosses the area was no longer public, thus they trespassed.
Paul Eddy That is absolute nonsense. They gave the persons a license to establish their "exhibit". They did not necessarily give them possessory rights to the area that allowed them to exclude others and if they did campus police would have removed them. Clearly the University sanctioned this activism as is their right since it is their land.
Dan Young Dan Many university's have written an applied guidance. It is called temporary domain. You have it right the the university sanctioned the art by doing nothing. That is why the defense league is becoming involved. Destroying ones art for another falls under trespassing. You talk about insulting people then why did you call what I said nonsense? I never implied that you may be living in your mother's basement, studying on line pre-law and eating pizza did I!
George Richard I'm not looking to make friends here thankfully
Dan Young Your freedom does not extend into my personal self or property which was what happened in this situation. You are ignorant and a repetitive drone for your speech coaches which have trained you well to say irrelevant and non-factual statements.
Darn Young – you seem to be clueless about the nature of vandalism. The police should have arrested her. Don't prattle on about permanent damage. It's not a required element. Don't post again until you get your IQ over two digits.
Dan Young "Their" exhibit-statement of ownership, therefore statement of fact that vandalism occurred and not just merely a freedom of speech by another individual.
Paul Eddy Calling what you said nonsense is not an insult because it is only directed at your argument not at you. I don't think you're stupid or even ignorant (so far). Calling someone "dick breath" is an insult however. So your implication that I'm being hypocritical is simply invalid.
Dan Young Dan Young I don't know Dan, Something about you just seems to bring out that kind of response from people. You really should work on your people skills, young man.
Dan Young Start at my wokl lefty let's see how you make out.
Catherine Drinkwater II An interference with property does not necessarily equate to a criminal offense. You have to cite the relevant section of the penal code and explain why it is applicable to this case.
Dan Young I realize you're not here to make friends Dan, you're just being a liberal troll. But you could still be nice, young man. Have a nice day.
Dan Young yours are logical? Really!
Dan Young yours are logical? Really!
Dan Young – Free Speech does not include stealing my ideas and using them for you own work. Again – you lose.
Dan Young – Some young'n has been listening to too many "professors". People tend to l grow up when they see their first paycheck and their "freedom of speech" gets them a knuckle sandwich, trust me. Young and liberal = heart. Matured and conservative = Brain plus heart.
Dan Young
Hardly typical. Typical libtard – always exaggerating. This is the only offensive comment I've seen here and there are perhaps hundreds of comments. In which school did you learn that one out of two hundred is typical? Thats new math for you.
As a WKU Alumni, I wholeheartedly plan on donating to my Alma mater! Unless you went to WKU you will never understand the malicious placement of the original display. It also helps to read the complete story, something Fox News often finds not necessary. Go to the WKUherald.com to read the full story.
Miss Smith and Dr. Arnold are what is commonly called "being assholes."
Unfortunately, this is not unusual. I have read many instances where pro-life displays have been vandalized and universities seldom, if ever, take any action against the perpetrators.
Nothing is gained from this sort of behavior. No one was helped, there was no charity, no love, no happiness. Regardless of religious identification, or lack thereof, the act was meant only to hurt. So there you have it. Ms. Smith (no Ph.D.) was not only condoning, but urging her student to hurt others.
Eloquently put!
These sick types of individuals participating in this behavior do so because they either are mentally deranged or are desperately seeking attention.
Agreed.
Since you don't appear to have read the article carefully and therefore are unable to identify which person was the teacher and which was the student, perhaps you should refrain from making comments on anyones intentions or actions.
Also the original display gave no help, love, charity or happiness. It pushed a harsh and confrontational message in the faces of thousands of unsuspecting students.
Rachel Fiehn – So someone mixed the personage of teach and student? That justifies writing the observation off? What a typical immature, adolescent and myopic view. I expect that type of commentary from someone who has never had to provide for themselves or care for another. Sad day for Kiswaukee College grads huh? So artistic protest is approved and loved (especially if it bases life) but to critique the left one is relegated to being harsh and confrontational. The Jews could have used you in the Krakow ghettos in the 1940's.
Sorry for your lack of wisdom Rachel. I read the article very carefully. There is nothing harsh about silent crosses and an attempt to protect the innocent. My guess: You would have been right beside the folks in Wilhelmshaven who watched their Jewish neighbors marched off for 'special treatment'…without saying a word.
Unsuspecting students? If they can sleep with each other like animals, can they not be informed of the possible by-product…and the pain that could be endured knowing that one had sacrificed their offspring on the alter of humanism? Sorry…but you and your 60's pals are hardly 'unsuspecting'.
Where can we expect to go or what can we expect to achieve when our “higher” educational institutions are incapable of distinguishing between art and desecration?
What would Lazlo Toth do?
Smells like a hate crime to me. Liberals needs to learn that the sword cuts both ways.
I concur!
Tell the university how you feel by pulling your kids out of that school. Even Fascist democrats need money. This is the best way to shut them down.
I say pull your kids out of ALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS. Private schools that share your values are far better anyway.
Here in CA 45% of the State's budget goes to Public Education. That means Teacher Union Thugs get your money and recycle it to fascist democrats that are trying to destroy America.
Keep fighting America. We that stand for the Constitution and good old fashion American values are winning, and the fascist democrats are running scared. Keep fighting on all fronts; political, economic, social, media, popular culture, etc.
I have a bachelors degree from WKU and I plan on donating to the University after I receive my DVM. You should read the complete story at WKUherald.com instead of lashing out at the University, whom in my opinion did an exceptional job at handling the situation. You don't have the full story because Fox News failed to report it! It is also hard for outsiders to grasp the concept of where the original display was placed. It was strategically placed in front of the Fine Art Center to illicit a provocative response.
Crosses are everywhere because there are ignorant people who still think Jesus was this magical being. Anyone who has been paying attention and reading something other than that old book knows that Christianity and organized religion in general are nothing but ancient tools employed to make it easier to manage a vast empire or states that do NOT have common culture to naturally adhere themselves together.
Constantine was a smart man. He knew that he couldn't hold what was left of the Roman Empire together without creating a commonality amongst that population. His answer was to take ancient traditions from many varying cultural sources and update them as "Christian" celebrations. The people get to keep their tradition but embrace it under a new common banner.
Go ahead and pray for me if you wish but you're wasting your time. I feel sorry for those of you who don't have the willpower and intellect to see religion for what it is; the opiate of the masses.
It's the respect thing. Despite it's myriad followers that don't actually follow, Christianity teaches respect above most other things, a moral force in a "do as you wish" world. It is the thing that has allowed people to sit down in a respectful forum and do democracy and technology. But it's absence (and the "make it up as you go" absence of respect) is the biggest challenge facing people and governments today!
It isn't just the absence of Christianity that threatens democracy and respect but the often hypocrisy of it's followers! Christians need to strive to be more Christ-like by having love for all instead of preaching love and then hating certain groups or individuals.
STOP THIS MESS —–
MANDATORY ABORTIONS for NON-WHITES and RACE MIXING LIBERALS!
NO EXCEPTIONS —-NO EXCUSES!
Hey professor, I catch you messing with my work, I shoot you in the lips, any question you stupid lefty megalomaniac.
I'd say this is a very soft case of vandalism. None of the crosses were damaged, and they removed the condoms after they got their point across. All they did was something to provoke thought and conversation on a very controversial issue. Everybody needs to stop attempting to silence people with opposite views.
You do not have the right to use someone else's artwork to use as you own – that is the whole point.
..I am sure as a broadcasting student you would also respect receiving the full story instead of just the portion that Fox News decided to twist into political fire! Go to WKUherald.com to get the full story!
I go to a school in KY not WKU, and I had a Professor call Obama a Demagogue, all hope is not lost in Public Education.
Smith /Arnold, I tell you to stop, you get told once, then I put a very large hurt on you, you scum bags are due for education you don't get in college.
Brinng cops the next time you want to put condoms on crosses.
You leftys just assume, that we are going to allow your garbage to go on forever.
You are in error.
You leftys just assume, that we are going to allow your garbage to go on forever.
You are in error.
Ok, I am very strongly pro-life. But unless the condoms were used -which would be filthy, disgusting, and unhealthy- I personally don't see it as "violating" or vandalism; just overly time-consuming and immature! The crosses themselves weren't removed, damaged, etc. I get the impression they weren't even totally obscured. The whole point of freedom if expiration is that you express YOUR opinion, not necessarily expecting others to agree; this was an expression of disagreement. I don't encourage/condone/agree with it, but they took them down, nothing was permanently damaged. It's not that big of a deal, imo. And yes, it WOULD be nice to hear of some other religion being picked on, but this incident itself simply isn't that serious.
You do not have the right to use someone else's artwork to use as you own – that is the whole point.
Shameful behavior being promoted on a college campus. I can not imagine the professor, student, administrators or safety officers would have seen fit to allow 3700 crosses to be placed on a pro-abortion display.
OK, so let's suppose the group that put up the crosses decided to hide and wait until "Professor" Kristina Arnold passed by, then paint bomb her in the name of an expressive art project of theirs. Are we to assume that Arnold would not object since this would merely be an expression of the group's 1st Amendment rights? Hardly. It would be more accurate to say the professor would be screaming her head off and threatening to sue everyone involved. Personally, I think someone at the university call the professor's hand on this and put her to the test. Remember: they used to dunk scolds like this nasty witch.
When the Romans crucified Jesus, they mocked him, put a crown of thorns on his head, ridiculed his kingdom by putting a purple robe on him, put a sign on his cross that said "Jesus, King of the Jews", spat upon him and laughed at him. They did all they could to humiliate and disparage him and his dying prayer was "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do. He is still the almighty King, and having non-believers put condoms on crosses will not diminish the fact that he is the Son of God. I pray for the poor lost souls that do not know Jesus. If they knew him, they would not have so much hate inside of them. They will all meet their maker one day and have to justify their actions. THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO!
I don't understand how this can be classified as "freedom of speech" or art? What would the reaction be if the student strung the condoms over a university statue? It would be different if she made her own cross and hung pretty colored condoms on it, but to do it to someone else's is more like T-peeing (toiletpapering) someone's house. Sure she didn't mark up the crosses and removed the condoms, but it's like saying, "I hate you" to the group.
Hill toppers for Life should contact their local police department and file charges against student Elaina Smith. Campus police are security guards, not Police Officers, and do not understand state or federal laws.
If Hilltoppers have an attorney, they should also sue Smith for damage caused to their display.
Actually, WKU police have undergone the same extensive training any other officer in the state of Kentucky has completed. They have the same power and duty on University grounds as does the city police have in the city of Bowling Green. Contrary to popular to believe (on the fox website), they handled the situation exactly how they should have. Go to WKUherald.com to read the full story!
I think it's funny that pro-life people are offended by this but believe it's ok to protest with pictures of a bloody fetus. That is much more disturbing then a bunch of condoms.
It has nothing to do with whether or not someone is disturbed by looking at a condom. Someone took another person's work and vandalized it. The fact it could be removed with little or no damage is irrelevant – they were asked not to do that and they had no right or business doing so.
With typical liberal lack of clarity, you confuse making a statement with vandalism. Pictures of dismembered humans are freedom of speech, art if you like. No one glued them on a professors car, on the deans door, etc. They were displayed. What part of that are you confused by? How can you logically compare the two?
Sounds like you graduated from a university like this one – degree but no education.
Paul Robinson , your argument is invalid. You claim, "Pictures of dismembered humans are freedom of speech, art". The crosses placed in front of the Fine Arts Center of all places, were just that. They were placed in front of the Fine Art Centers in hope to illicit a response. The brother of the president of Hilltoppers for Christ was guarding the display, waiting for just that to happen! Fittingly, Elaina Smith exercised her freedom of speech by placing condoms on the crosses. She didn't destroy or remove the display but instead simply altered a public display to fit her beliefs. If you go to WKUherald.com you will find the full story and find that she took a picture and then promptly removed the condoms with the police in attendance.
As a Christian, I have no problem with the events that took place. I think it is a healthy way for young people on a college campus to interact and exchange their opinions on a very important issue. I commend the University for handling the situation the way that they did because it was conducive to a learning environment. The sensationalist media just happened to find that if they blew it out of proportion and twisted it around a little bit maybe they could use it as political fire.
Your last statement about having "a degree but no education", is not only insulting to WKU alumni including myself but quite ironic considering despite acquiring an education yourself, you fail to recognize the true definition of vandalism and then research in order to make an evidence based conclusion to an incomplete article posted by Fox News.
I hope the University, the teacher and the student all went on record and publicly defended Rush Limbaugh's First Amendment Right when he asked what Ms. Fluke should be called……
So then based on their logic, if someone goes to the school parking lot and vandalizes their car in the name of "art" then they can't complain or file a police report. I can go the the art museum and spray paint the Mona Lisa and say that I'm exercising my right to free speech. Oh yes, the people who twist the Constitution when it fits their needs as if it were payback for when people legitimately complain their rights are violated.
If this student put the condoms on another students artwork then it is not only desecration but intellectual theft and plagarism. In which case, bot the student and the professor MUST be punished.
Liberals seem to have all the mannerisms of feral cats. No offense to feral cats.
Liberals seem to have all the mannerisms of feral cats. No offense to feral cats.
Since it was a Christian display, the university will do nothing. After all, academia disrespects Christianity all the while preaching "diversity". This is a disgrace and if the university does not take action against the act and against the professor sanctioning it, the taxpayers of KY should take action.
Of course the professor and the student defended their actions – Guess what? So di Bernie Madoff – he was guilty of theft too.
No speech involved here. Just mean desecration of a christian symbol.
When Christ was crucified he said " FORGIVE THEM FATHER THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO" This action is a discrace to christians and should not be condoned. They are idiots.
I'm 21 and am completely disgusted by the actions of people who are supposed to be considered "adults". REAL adults talk their problems out and agree to disagree, they don't put obviously offensive material on crosses to create even more offense.
Disrespect of anothers endeavor is a most heinous crime. The fact that the culprits waited until dark, wore dark clothing to avoid detection should indicate that they 1. knew what they were doing was wrong, 2. wished to do so anonymously until confronted and 3. don't have an ounce of respect for other ideas. BTW the display was not an ART project as carried by other media but an expression of concern over the loss of innocent life DAILY. As far as a 'womens rights' issue…. I find it disturbing that women have cheapened their sexuality into a political toy. The most intimate and personal 'thing' you can share with another is your sexuality. To throw it around with abandon or 'just for fun' is cheapening your humanity to the level of the other creatures on this earth.
Some people need to "vandalized" and then have it called "art".
University says the incident is closed. Not in my book, I am a graduate of WKU along with several friendsand family members. Not happen with the results and will remember this when they call for their annual fundraiser.
Not happy with the university response and will remember when they call for money. I am a graduate of WKU.
As am I, therefore I went to WKUherald.com to read the story instead of relying on Fox News biased opinion. The University and their police department actually handled the situation the best they could. It is a shame that something that happens often on college campuses had to be misconstrued and used to fuel a political fire! WKU is a victim of circumstance!
Bradley Ryan Venable To each his own.
Hey, Todd Starnes: How 'bout printing things is black and white. Very difficult reading your prose…
I know no one will listen, but it wasn't trespassing or vandalism. Stop trying to pretend that it was. You know why it wasn't trespassing? Because the campus is a PUBLIC SPACE. The work may have been private property, but it was in a public university space and to call it "trespassing" is ridiculous. It doesn't matter if they were sanctioned to be there or not. Someone still has the right to respond to a highly political display in a non-violent, non-destructive manner.
The student was responding to the political message being conveyed, stating that the abortions represented could have possibly been prevented with the use of condoms and other forms of birth control. This wasn't anything close to a "hate crime" or an attack on religion [and HIlltoppers for Life aren't even supposed to be a religious group. They chose to use the cross in a political statement as tombstones representing aborted fetuses] and was an exercise of free speech just like the original display was. And guess what? Free speech protects dissenting views. Just because you don't agree with it or were offended by it doesn't make it any less within the student's rights.
Why not at least present yourself as intellectually honest and call them dismembered humans rather than aborted fetus. It WAS vandalism of property – you cannot use semantics to get around that. And no one has the right to respond in such a way. Changing the art frm destroyed the message at the very least. Like I said – Vandalism.
So let me know next time Planned Abortions is on campus – we'll be sure to come down and paper their display with pictured of their handiwork – gory as that may be. I'm sure that will fall within the freedom of speech you espouse!
You criticize me for semantics and then say it "destroyed the message"? That is not vandalism if it was not done in a destructive way. And yes, what you describe would most certainly fall into the realm of free speech, if the "papering" were done in a removeable way. WKU is a free speech zone.
Paul Robinson should certain groups have to be honest too and call themselves anti-choice instead of pro-life? And on that note, Planned Parenthood might not actually be an "honest" name for the offices, but Planned Abortions is even less accurate, especially considering how much of their work is abortion. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/what-planned-parenthood-actually-does/2011/04/06/AFhBPa2C_blog.html
Moreover you should really check the laws on the book before speaking. Changing a message is not vandalism. However, the student and teacher may be guilty of Institutional Vandalism (Kentucky Revised Code 525.113) if these particular crosses were found to be venerated objects as defined by KRC 525.110 ("…in a public place the national or state flag or other patriotic or religious symbol which is an object of veneration by the public or a substantial segment thereof"). This would also lead to liability under the statute providing the definition (Desecration of venerated objects, second degree). However, it would not be hard to make a cogent argument that the crosses were not being used as a religious symbol in the context, especially considering that Hilltoppers for Life is not supposed to be a religious group.
Just because it was 'speech' does not make it right or honorable. If folks have the free choice to have sex with whatever they like…then they should be free to take responsibility for their actions. Killing the child because I screwed the wrong person or at the wrong time does not constitute using abortion as a means of birth control.
Standing in 1940's Germany…would you have handed condoms to Jews? The message of these crosses are a visual reminder of the daily slaughter of the innocents. I would have more respect if you had handed out the condoms to your friends rather than a symbolic disrespect for one who was attempting to get the message across.
Gas chambers or the Planned Parenthood clinic…the results are the same. I would hope you would approve and support those folks who peacefully stand outside abortion clinics protesting these murders. Is there free speech as valuable as yours?
You would have had far more impact if you had assisted those folks instead of this juvenile act. Hope you get an A in the class…you will need it on the last day!
Just because it was 'speech' does not make it right or honorable. If folks have the free choice to have sex with whatever they like…then they should be free to take responsibility for their actions. Killing the child because I screwed the wrong person or at the wrong time does not constitute using abortion as a means of birth control.
Standing in 1940's Germany…would you have handed condoms to Jews? The message of these crosses are a visual reminder of the daily slaughter of the innocents. I would have more respect if you had handed out the condoms to your friends rather than a symbolic disrespect for one who was attempting to get the message across.
Gas chambers or the Planned Parenthood clinic…the results are the same. I would hope you would approve and support those folks who peacefully stand outside abortion clinics protesting these murders. Is there free speech as valuable as yours?
You would have had far more impact if you had assisted those folks instead of this juvenile act. Hope you get an A in the class…you will need it on the last day!
Kelly: I think this is an issue more of bad judgement than one of first amendment rights. If a group puts up a display they don't expect anyone to come in and alter it, even if their intent is well meaning. Miss Smith didn't have that right, and neither did the Art teacher have the right to encourage it. Put yourself in the shoes of the Hilltopper's for Life, if Miss Smith had a display of condoms to promote birth control, would she of felt violated if the Hilltoppers' group arrived with a bunch of crosses and placed it on her display? Personally, i believe Miss Smith should apologize to the Hilltopper's for Life group, and so should the Art teacher.
Freedom of speech? There was no speech here! It was vandalism and a diversion from a sacred purpose to a profane one! "Freedom of religion is considered by many people and nations to be a fundamental human right." Where's the justice here?