15-year old questioned...for drawing

[MJC]

Controversial topics
Technically, posting on controversial topics (like politics and religion) is against Toon Zone rules. However, we do allow it at the Cafe. Just observe the following guidelines:

1. Argue, don't bash. If you have a point to make, make it in a reasonable and reasoned manner. Remember, you ought to be trying to persuade your fellow posters, not intimidate them.

2. Be calm. Remember, the people you are arguing against are not evil; they merely have a different opinion. You must to treat that opinion with basic amount of respect if you are going to have any hope of getting them to change it.

3. Be substantive, not merely satirical. Politicians as politicians are a proper target for ridicule, and we here at Toon Zone make no brief for them. However, mocking a politician is not the same as arguing against his or her positions, and is a cheap substitute for them. Note also that mocking a politician is a good way to anger and inflame other posters who like, respect, or admire that politician. Remember, do not seek to inflame or aggravate your fellow posters.



http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001913678_prosser27m.html


Eastern Washington teen's sketches attract Secret Service scrutiny

By The Associated Press


E-mail this article

Print this article

Search archive




PROSSER, Benton County — Secret Service agents questioned a high-school student here about anti-war drawings he turned in to his art teacher.
One of them depicted President Bush's head on a stick.

Another pencil-and-ink drawing depicted Bush as a devil launching a missile, with a caption reading "End the war — on terrorism."

The 15-year-old boy's art teacher turned the drawings over to school administrators, who notified a police officer assigned to work with the school.

"We involve the police anytime we have a concern," Prosser Superintendent Ray Tolcacher told the Tri-City Herald.

"From our perspective, it was an incident that needed to be reported to the police on campus."

Secret Service agents interviewed the boy Friday. The student, who was not arrested, has not been identified.

The school district disciplined him, but district officials declined to say what the punishment was. Tolcacher said the boy was not suspended. Tolcacher insisted it was not a freedom-of-speech issue but a concern over the depiction of violence.

"From what I saw, (school officials) were right to be concerned," Prosser Police Chief Win Taylor said.

The artwork was apparently part of an assignment to keep a notebook of drawings, according to Kevin Cravens of Richland, who said he was a family friend of the boy who was investigated.

The drawing that drew the most attention showed a man in what appeared to be Middle Eastern-style clothing, holding a rifle. He also was holding a stick with the oversize head of President Bush on it. The student said the head was enlarged because it was intended to be an effigy, Cravens said. The caption called for an end to the war in Iraq.




The boy's mother declined to talk with The Seattle Times last night. The Secret Service did not return the Herald's calls for comment, and a message left by The Associated Press with an after-hours duty officer in Washington, D.C., was not immediately returned yesterday.

"If this 15-year-old kid in Prosser is perceived as a threat to the president, then we are living in '1984.' " Cravens said.

Seattle Times staff reporter Nguyen Huy Vu contributed to this report.



Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Company


This is a little scary.

[Calhoun07]

I realize this could soon explode into a political thread that will require closing, but I just wanted to say that it's a shame that the America this boy's grand fathers fought and died for that gives him the right to object to a senseless war died already. Gone is the America where there is freedom of speech and freedom of thought. And things are only going to get worse.

[Hey_yu]

Haha, that's funny! Go kid!

[SlyBoy]

What the hell is happening to freedom of speech in this country... :(

[Mist]

This country is slowly losing its freedom..

[Eddie G.]

Just an interesting thing I heard, here in Brooklyn a mystery man gave a little monologue about how he would kill the President. The man concealed his identity for obvious reasons, although I do know someone who knows who he is. But to the article, it is sort of horrible, I'm okay with there being a minor concern over the child however I am not okay if the child being punished for what he drew nor do I like the idea of people being censored for expressing his views, even if he expresses his views in a violent manner.

[Classic Speedy]

Sorry to play devil's advocate, but why did the guy TURN IN that drawing? What did he think was going to happen, that everyone would find it funny and laugh it off? I'm all for freedom of speech, but he should've thought ahead about what his actions might cause.

Having said that, this case doesn't fall under hate speech, because the person he showed the drawing to wasn't the one under imminent threat. Had he mailed these cartoons to Bush himself, that would be a completely different story.

[Tienshin]

If a kid submitted a drawing of decapitated human being whose head was placed on a stick to me I'd report him regardless of who was depicted or what the circumstances were.

[AndreaBeaumont]

It's political art though...in this year of the election and increasing awareness amoung younger people it's been a popular subject this year...in every art show I've been apart of there's been some sort of politically based artwork. Whether it be a simple as a drawing, mixed media, painting, sculpture....I've seen it all. The first thing I thought though is what kind of art teacher would turn in their student for something like this. Every subject is fair game for an artists own depiction and to exercise their freedom of speech be it on President Bush, Religion, or other beliefs. You may not agree with it and some will even say it was extreme...but that's what art is...pushing the envelope, looking at something in a different way and portraying it to viewer, in an attempt to convey a message or open someone's eyes to a different Point of View, sometimes shock value is the most dangerous brush in an artists kit, but it's used often! And sometimes is the most effective! I don't care HOW graphic these drawings were, freedom of speech covers everyone not just the republican party. If he were drawing pictures of his family or himself or teachers being killed MAYBE just MAYBE it would have been acceptable to worry about and step in in this situation. But public figures are fair game for criticism in both the written word and in art. I realize they're worried about the presidents safety in this time of unstableness in the world but it wasn't a WRITTEN threat, conveying actual intent of acting upon the drawings he created. This is ludicrous and as more and more instances like this pop up all over the country it worries me that we're heading further and further away from the safe shores of democracy. Away from liberty and justice for all....

[Squall]

If a kid submitted a drawing of decapitated human being whose head was placed on a stick to me I'd report him regardless of who was depicted or what the circumstances were.
I agree. All the Secret Service did was interview the kid, and send him home. He didn't get in any real trouble (unless you count the detention he likely got -- to a 15-year-old, that's real trouble! :p ) Did the Secret Service overreact? Perhaps. (I'm sure they were more interested in where he got those ideas in the first place -- in other words, his parents or guardians...) But the press overreacted much more.

Freedom of speech doesn't include threatening or causing danger to another person's physical safety, because then you're violating their freedoms (physical safety is an obvious freedom!). You can call someone an idiot, a horrible person, etc. but you can't say "I'm going to kill _____" any more than you can run into a crowded theater and yell "Fire!" when there is no fire... This applies no matter who you are; he would have gotten simliar attention if that had been his teacher's head, my head, or President Bush's head on that stick in his pictures... it just would have ended with the local police, instead of the Secret Service.

[RZetlin]

Yes, a 15 year old boy is great threat to the president.

[Squall]

Yes, a 15 year old boy is great threat to the president.
Of course not! But for all we know, one of his parents or his parents' friends might be... Again, all the Secret Service did was interview the kid. I've gotten in worse trouble for speeding tickets... :p

[RZetlin]

Of course not! But for all we know, one of his parents or his parents' friends might be... Again, all the Secret Service did was interview the kid. I've gotten in worse trouble for speeding tickets... :p
The kid is probably blacklisted.

[Squall]

The kid is probably blacklisted.
Sure. He'll never get that car loan from the bank and that job at Wal-Mart he was applying for now... :p You guys are being so paranoid! Now, if the kid actually went to jail, or something serious like that, I'd be concerned too... but all they did was talk to him!

[zmanjz]

All threats against the sitting president of the United states are investigated. Art or not, His head on a pike looks like a threat to me.

If I were a Federal LEO I'd investigate this.

I mean the FBI keeps a record of juvenile crimes involving psycological issues (It is a fact that Cruelty to animals as a child is a common precursor to being a serial killer)


Of course this isn't a punishment. the fact that the Secret Service checked up on him makes perfect sense they don't know this kid. So, they ask him some questions, and determine whether he is a threat or not.


In all likelyhood, they'll determine that this is just a kid with issues, and not worth their time.


(But rest assured, that the next time the president visits the region, that kid's face will be among the "look out for these people" photos.)

[ZorBrak]

Any reference to ending the life of the president is investigated, no matter how small or serious the reference may seem. This isn't anything new and it's not a limitation of freedom. People need to stop being so melodramatic.

[AndreaBeaumont]

The presidents head on a pike may LOOK LIKE A THREAT TO YOU...but it isn't...plain and simple...you can't just say...Hmm looks LIKE a threat...it's either a threat or it isn't. And I'm not as concerned with FBI interviewing him as I am that the school made sure to ASSURE everyone he was going to be PUNISHED. Which is b.s. If it was an ART PROJECT then that's what it was. I mean seriously people, it's not like he sent it directly to the white house laced with a mysterious white powder. He turned it in for a project...so how can the school punish him for doing homework in essence...even if they deemed it innappropriate it still doesn't warrant punishment, suspension, explusion, etc. Maybe a conference with parents if they were REALLY that concerned. And as the kid AUTOMATICALLY having ISSUES because of a piece of work he did about his dislike for the president doesn't mean he has issues. Most art is exaggerated for shock value...it doesn't mean he's a satanist...o_O.

[Samhaine]

I mean the FBI keeps a record of juvenile crimes involving psycological issues (It is a fact that Cruelty to animals as a child is a common precursor to being a serial killer)I just wanted to say that it can't be a proven fact, because in psychology nothing can be proven. And that is a fact.

I expect this sort of thing though - it's a high school, and artistic freedom isn't the first thing that comes to my mind when I think about high school.

[Xada-Hgla]

Just to the nay-sayers out there... If someone drew a picture that included your head on a pike (or just simply severed), wouldn't you take that as a personal threat? I sure would. Now I'll admit I really cannot stand Dubya, but in this particular instance, I think the Secret Service acted correctly.

[Lucky Bob]

I've taken a vow of silence on political issues, but this is an exception, as it has nothing to do with politics, and all to do with legal precedence.

I have a really dumb cousin who once said something to the effect of "The president is better off dead" in public during the Clinton administration. Sure enough, a few guys in black visited him a couple of days later to ask him a few questions. I don't know what transpired, but he was a bit more careful about being a jerk after that.

In addition, a pro-Bush cartoon by conservative editorial cartoonist Michael Ramirez drew Secret Service attention when he put Bush at the mercy of "Politics" in a hauntingly familiar Vietnam picture (http://www.houseofplum.com/plumcrazy/archives/000752.html). The Secret Service interviewed him, but the inquiry was later called off. (Ramirez didn't let it go without a playful jab (http://cagle.slate.msn.com//news/BLOG/BLOGgifs/20030804RZ1AP-SecretServic-.gif), though.)

In short, it may be stupid, but it's precedence. When it comes to real or implied threats on the President, any President, there is usually at least a Q&A session with the Secret Service. Rightly so, in my opinion. I'm sure nobody took Booth, Oswald, or Hinkley seriously before their infamous acts.

What disturbs me more than the picture is the fact that some alarmists will take it and run with it as an erosion of our liberties based on hatred for one public figure. Research be hanged. It's a sad commentary on the state of political discourse, but c'est la internet, I guess.

[randomguy]

Preach on, brotha Lucky Bob. The fact is, this kind of situation is nothing new, and is by no means atypical or representative of a freedom of speech crackdown. If you're gonna moan about deteriorating civil liberties, you can find stronger cases. Quite easily, in fact.

I'm sure nobody took Booth, Oswald, or Hinkley seriously before their infamous acts.True. But, to be fair, nobody took Hinkley seriously because of a fairly sound reason: he was mentally unbalanced. Schizophrenic, if I recall correctly.


The Kid is probably blacklisted
Doubt it. Teenagers are almost always overzealous and exaggetory in their political views and sentiments (when they have them). I should know; it's a phase I only recently completed. The Secret Service will understand that. The kid was probably more intrested in shocking teachers and classmates than making a genuine statement anyway.

[zmanjz]

I just wanted to say that it can't be a proven fact, because in psychology nothing can be proven. And that is a fact.

I expect this sort of thing though - it's a high school, and artistic freedom isn't the first thing that comes to my mind when I think about high school.
I used the term "Fact" as a relativistic term. If I was talking about Freudian psycology, then I'd agree with you. However based upon case study, and statistical study of the criminal group known as "Serial Killers" I believe that I can use the term Fact and still remain accurate.


(As this is getting off topic, if you have any more to say about semantic use of vocabulary, please use the Private Messages to talk to me.)


FOR EVERYONE ELSE: re-read the Rules I appended to the first post in this thread. (It looks like I'm going to have to do this for Every political thread from now on.)

[shogunthethird]

what I want to know is, would there still have been an uproar if instead of Dubya's head on a pike they just had him shown sitting on Cheney's knee with the VP's hand up his backside, ventriloquist-dummy style? because there's a difference between saying the man should die and referring to him as a right-wing marionette with delusions of messiahhood

[Delthayre]

what I want to know is, would there still have been an uproar if instead of Dubya's head on a pike they just had him shown sitting on Cheney's knee with the VP's hand up his backside, ventriloquist-dummy style? because there's a difference between saying the man should die and referring to him as a right-wing marionette with delusions of messiahhood
Well, I think it's substantially less likely than the head-on-a-pike scenario to attract any kind of federal attention, but I would be apt to call it an excessively simplistic and self-defeating caricature. Regardless of the veracity of claims that Bush is a puppet of any kind (I wobble back and forth on this myself, which is why I'm loathe to talk about it... also because of deep self-loathing), making such allegations is barely if at all substantive or helpful. Creating that image of Bush simplifies the situation in a way that tricks the mind into focusing on character issues in an inconsequential way. The nature of the president has been personally impugned by many, but only a few in a way that was at all enlightening or of any worth. This kind of personal-level attack and disparagement is the tool of vitriolic cable news pundits and talk radio hosts, not of people with a focus on improving the depth of understanding on policy issues and substantive political concerns in general.

Frankly the greater trend of both the picture and the initial responses seem to have been symptomatic of this. The responses all had a strongly knee-jerk quality to them and little rationale for the much bandied-about loss of freedom was supplied. The picture itself, as Randomguy put it, was more for shock than an actual refined political statement, having been a communist in high school, I know well that perspective.

So, as I always, to little avail, say, "try harder."

*squints*

Gee-willikers, that was a bit Deee-pressin'.

*inserts relevant levity*

http://www.meninhats.com/comics/20040430.gif

[FredNash]

Does anyone remember that episode of the State where the teacher is explaining to his students how it's illegal to say you're going to kill the president, then as soon as he says "I'm going to kill the president", the feds bust the door down and take him away? hehe.


(I think it was the State, but I could be wrong...)

[Cartman]

I understand why people would be suspicious of that art. As an artist myself, I tend to express what I may be feeling in my work (mostly through colors in paintings). I'm sure that kid didn't mean any real harm to anyone, but was just sick of the war like so many of us. I think it was a little extreme bringing the secret service in though.

[RZetlin]

I wonder what kind of grade the boy will get in his class?

I wonder if the teacher is a Republician supporter to turn in his artwork like that?

[Delthayre]

I wonder if the teacher is a Republician supporter to turn in his artwork like that?
No, there is most likely some sort of school policy that dictates the reporting of all disturbing or peculiarly graphic drawings et cetera on the basis of concern for the psychological stability of the student. That it was reported to federal authorities was simply a precaution. Perhaps a somewhat extreme one, but an understandable one.

[JDuncan]

Does anyone remember that episode of the State where the teacher is explaining to his students how it's illegal to say you're going to kill the president, then as soon as he says "I'm going to kill the president", the feds bust the door down and take him away? hehe.


(I think it was the State, but I could be wrong...)Yeah, I remember that too. If anyone wants to see it, it's available here (http://www.statemedia.net/state.php), it's called 'hypothetical question'.

[wrenchien]

that kid is going to be one heaven of a political cartoonist.

he ought to run with it.. he's already got his name in the paper and he doesn't even work for one.

[FredNash]

Yeah, I remember that too. If anyone wants to see it, it's available here (http://www.statemedia.net/state.php), it's called 'hypothetical question'.
Cool! That's an awesome website, I've been looking for something like that for a long time... now if we can only get it on dvd... the site says "we've finally broken through 95% of the red tape" woo-hoo!

[True Noir]

Well, I have mixed feelings about this. The kid drawing and secret service agents come after him is hilarious almost surreal. Teachers being concerned about something like that is normal. The kid is wierd. The teachers noticed. End of story.

[Nick Biped]

Well, I can see the teacher being somewhat concerned about such a drawing, and maybe talking to the student about it. I'd think that's as far as it should've gone, though, since I'd think the teacher could've done a good enough job of finding out what the kid's thinking, and whether or not to go further. But if there's precedence for the Secret Service to investigate things like this, though, then okay.

[ZorBrak]

People still are missng the point. It's nothing personal, it's just traditional procedure. A boy said something along the lines of wanting to kill Clinton in a chatroom during his term- he was investigated. It's the head of state. Every security measure is taken. I shook a certain executive political leader's hand once and you better believe I was being watched in a sniper scope or two. It's just security.

[shogunthethird]

for a lot of reasons this reminds me of an old Dave Berg cartoon (edited to reflect modern sentiments)


Random guy: Any American who isn't a right-wing conservative like me is either a stinkin' terrorist or a damn foreigner

Roger Kaputnik: I'm an american and I'm neither of those

Random guy: you wanna tell me why someone like you who says they're an American isn't a right-wing conservative?

RK: A wise man once spoke of the "golden mean" that all things must be in moderation for there to be order and peace

Random guy: Who said that?

RK: Aristotle the greek philosopher

RG: AHA! ANOTHER DAMN FOREIGNER!

[WingZombie38]

I am uncretain how to feel about this. In my art class we have to keep a sketch book [mine sucks:sad:] on human gestures. In my sister's class she has the total freedom to draw whatever she feels like. Her professor never had given a list of things she couldn't draw. I'm thinking the boy had a similar teacher/professor. So he decided to draw something harsh and political because he wasn't told he couldn't.

Now obviously they didn't figure he'd go and do something like that. I'm still uncertain about him being reported because of a student in my class. He always draws the models disfigured (sp?) as if they are melting. Even goes on and draws eyeballs popping off, skeleton showing, etc. The professor acknowledges that they are "gross" but finds them interesting and part of his style.

Now I wonder what she would say if he did something with Bush. If I remember next week I will ask her, aside of course.

[Alex Toon]

What the hell is happening to freedom of speech in this country... :( Actually, the Constitution says you are allowed freedom of speech, but as long as it does not involve overthrowing the government.

[Steve Jester]

What irks me is that people claim that free speech is being restricted and what not. They don't even bother to look up the actual wording of the amendment. I agree that the freedom of speech is is restricted, more than you think.


Originally taken from the Consitution of the United States of America: First Article of Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof: or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.The bolded words are so to point out my point. The amdendment states that you can't make a law abridging the right of free speech. In this full text of the amendment I find no exceptions to the "make no law" clause regarding free speech. In fact, I find no text in any part of the Constitution stating an exception to this text. I consede that certian things, like yelling "Fire" in a crowded area when there is no fire is irresposible and such, but do you see anywhere in the Constitution that gives the state or the federal government the right to make that illegal? This I press to you people who wish to answer that. Fact of the matter is, I want to be proved wrong on this case. It's not because I want free speech regulated but because it would make everything I know of today's world logical.

[zmanjz]

do you see anywhere in the Constitution that gives the state or the federal government the right to make that illegal? This I press to you people who wish to answer that. Fact of the matter is, I want to be proved wrong on this case. It's not because I want free speech regulated but because it would make everything I know of today's world logical.





Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;




To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Preservation of government is a primary requirement of the existance of government. The conflict between the laws requires a balancing which is generally done through the work of the Supreme court. they decide where the line is between the Necessary and Proper clause and the right to freedom of speech.



In this case, the government can not lock the kid away because he drew the president's head on a pike. But they have the authority to investigate and find out if that is his intention or if he was just making a statement. if he was just making a statement he will not be punished in any way under the law.

[Fone Bone]

Yeah, it happens all the time, even before Bush. Still, I think people are overreacting BECAUSE we have had a lot of our freedoms taken away recently and people are just being sensitive to that. It's not like this paranoia is happening out of the blue.

[Steve Jester]

Preservation of government is a primary requirement of the existance of government. The conflict between the laws requires a balancing which is generally done through the work of the Supreme court. they decide where the line is between the Necessary and Proper clause and the right to freedom of speech.



In this case, the government can not lock the kid away because he drew the president's head on a pike. But they have the authority to investigate and find out if that is his intention or if he was just making a statement. if he was just making a statement he will not be punished in any way under the law.
Ah, yes I agree. Art. 1 Sec. 8 says that Congress must put the defense of the government and its people over comon rights. But notice that this is part of the orignal Constitution. When an amendment comes into play, it attaches itself to applicable places in the original document. so the last paragraph of Art. 1 Sec. 8 becomes:



To make all laws, except those that establish religion, abridge the freedom of speech or press, or the right to peaceably assemble and to petition the government, which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

The question is, whether the wise Nine Souls in Washington believe that is true. No one needs to tell me the answer to that, the Supreeme Court would put Art. 1 Sec. 8 unamended over the logical right.

I still stand by my position. The letter of the law (Constitution) says that congress shall make no law abridging the right of free speech. I agree that in essance that's a paradox, but hey if the supreeme law of the land can be so loosely interpreted and people are willing to let it, hey I'm all for it! After all, as a liberal I'm all for loose interpratation on the Constitution, except for free speech. I don't care if they take away my "liberal membership card" if you will, I stand by the wording of the Constitution on free speech.

[Caffeine King]

If a kid submitted a drawing of decapitated human being whose head was placed on a stick to me I'd report him regardless of who was depicted or what the circumstances were.
:p I agree.

It's probably one of those "misunderstood" kids.

They sound like a freak to me. :sweat:

I'd be freaked out if I knew anyone who drew someone's head on a stick, regardless who it is.

But if it was Sadam or Osama on that stick I'd say "right on!" :shrug:

[JustJack]

While this thread may be dwindling down to "doye"-ness, here's what I'm going to put in, real quick.

In high school, I was well known for my political cartoons. Infact, I was well known for posting up "rude" and "offensive" cartoons in hallways, just to see the reaction.

Not once did I write a political comic which depicted President Bush in a positive way. And yes...his head ended up on a stick...several times. And Vice Prez Chaney had a heart attack in every frame he was in.

I was awarded for my vulgar use of free-speech. Infact, the principle said she didn't like my comics, but was "proud" that I was comfortable speaking(or...uhm...drawing) my mind, in a high school setting(where there is only one opinion...the teenage opinion). So, my principle simply told me that if I want to post them in the halls anymore, just make sure they're not violent or vulgar.

Point being......just because someone draws a picture of someone's head on a stick...that's not a threat. My friends all have many pictures of me ripping their hearts out, and causing other forms of torture upon them. 90% of the time it's all in good fun, and should be taken with a light heart. Of course there will always be those who just don't see violence as funny or any kind of entertainment....and I can't get started on them, being as they clearly have no grip on reality. Still...

...I'm not a threat to national security. And this kid...is not a threat to his school. He's just making a valid point, using ink and paper, just like a million other kids probably do.

More power to him...

...now I just want to know what kind of ART teacher would look at an expression of political emotion, and see it as a bad thing? Jeeze...and here I thought art was supposed to be a way of venting such bad emotions?

[Turtle25]

While this thread may be dwindling down to "doye"-ness, here's what I'm going to put in, real quick.

In high school, I was well known for my political cartoons. Infact, I was well known for posting up "rude" and "offensive" cartoons in hallways, just to see the reaction.

Not once did I write a political comic which depicted President Bush in a positive way. And yes...his head ended up on a stick...several times. And Vice Prez Chaney had a heart attack in every frame he was in.
It's admirable you could press on like that, but isn't that taking the easy approach? It's easy to completely debase a public figure, but I never saw the appeal in showing acts of violence towards them or making fun of their medical conditions. Editorial cartoonists sometimes do it, stand-up comics... wouldn't it be better for society to try and find more constructive and valid humour? See, something like Bush in a bulldozer levelling a forest would be more appealing. =)



I was awarded for my vulgar use of free-speech. Infact, the principle said she didn't like my comics, but was "proud" that I was comfortable speaking(or...uhm...drawing) my mind, in a high school setting(where there is only one opinion...the teenage opinion). So, my principle simply told me that if I want to post them in the halls anymore, just make sure they're not violent or vulgar.

Point being......just because someone draws a picture of someone's head on a stick...that's not a threat. My friends all have many pictures of me ripping their hearts out, and causing other forms of torture upon them. 90% of the time it's all in good fun, and should be taken with a light heart. Of course there will always be those who just don't see violence as funny or any kind of entertainment....and I can't get started on them, being as they clearly have no grip on reality. Still...
Don't be so quick to dismiss those people. I can tell you I've known quite a few people who've had trouble distinguishing between reality and fiction... from both sides. I really don't find violence funny, especially not in context. Violence is obviously not funny in reality, so... wouldn't you say their grip is actually too strong?



...I'm not a threat to national security. And this kid...is not a threat to his school. He's just making a valid point, using ink and paper, just like a million other kids probably do.

More power to him...

...now I just want to know what kind of ART teacher would look at an expression of political emotion, and see it as a bad thing? Jeeze...and here I thought art was supposed to be a way of venting such bad emotions?