I don't see what all the fuss is about. It's not a violation of freedom of speech. The guy could take his painting to another gallery, hang it in a restaurant, display it on the street if he felt like it. What happened is one PRIVATE BUSINESS decided that it was not in its best interest to have a particular painting hanging in its establishment. They could decide this for political reasons, for aesthetic reasons, for financial reasons, whatever. Now, if the police (a PUBLIC agency) had come in and demanded that it be taken down and confiscated the painting, THAT would have been censorship.
When you enter into an agreement with a private entity, you agree to abide by certain established rules. Some restaurants outlaw the use of cell phones. That's not a first amendment violation of speech, it's a restaurant owner doing what they feel is in the best interests of their business. If you don't like it, you are perfectly free to go somewhere else.
Would you have the same problem if the picture was removed because it was just butt-ugly and wasn't selling? Or because it wasn't aesthetically consonant with the rest of the gallery's works? The owner has the right to change his mind, unless there's some kind of contract, for whatever reason they want.
__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
|