Jesus and His Blasphemous Nails

Jesus Does His Nails by artist Dana Ellyn

By Tatiana von Tauber

Today is Blasphemy Day and its objective is to “open up all religious beliefs to the same level of free inquiry, discussion and criticism to which all other areas of academic interest are subjective” according to Center for Inquiry, the host of the Blasphemy Day Artist Showcase exhibition. Meet Dana Ellyn. She’s the showcase artist and she’s getting lots of attention she doesn’t want for a painting which was spurred by creativity and a theme.

“I don’t want to be the poster child for atheism. It is a fact that I don’t believe in god or practice any religion – but that is not what defines me or my art.”

The attention Ellyn is getting is on her Jesus Does His Nails painting and the religious community is angry. CNN interviewed her last night. Pharyngula picked her up as did Politics Daily. Bill Donohue is mad and a slew of religious folks have been sending her hate mail. That’s nothing new in the controversial world of art and free speech. However, I got an inside scoop to some questions a pastor who’s a self announced “fundamental Christian” asked Ellyn. The question which poked me hardest served as an example of the crux of the problem with intolerance and that is simply blatant assumption:

“What would you say to someone like me, a Fundamentalist Christian, who has a hard time believing your statement that your “point is not to offend” after viewing paintings like “Jesus Does His Nails“, “Silly Rabbit, Myths Are For Kids” and “Bottled at the Source“? It would seem, in my opinion, the offensiveness is not only intended, but is quite possibly the objective of such pieces. Your response?”

Dana Ellyn was kinder than I would have been because if Ellyn really wanted to insult, she as many others, could find truly insulting and offensive imagery to blast at the religious community.  What Ellyn has is provocative art and that’s one of art’s purposes. Ellyn said she’s never consciously and intently sat down at an easel to paint something that would purposefully offend. What Dana Ellyn does – as many or most artists do – is she sits down at an easel with intent to provoke human emotion in order to ignite discussion, thought, critical thinking, or simple pondering. As Ellyn states,

“I hope they (art pieces) foster open-minded discussions. And perhaps induce a giggle or two along the way.” (Personally, I love her take on motherhood. Hook me up, please!)

To be fair, as I always try, of course the religious minded have the right to speak their mind too. That’s what freedom of speech is about – everyone having a voice. However, when speaking one’s mind turns into crazy forms of verbal harassment with blatant lack of tolerance as seen in the many comments on this article, one has to wonder what sunday school or God his behavior and ethics are modeled after when he attacks with things like Dana Ellyn must be stopped and punished. To Ellyn, that’s no longer simply a heated difference of opinion; it’s conscious – and proud – intent of wishing someone bad via punishment and full censorship for what is ultimately subjective expression. Ellyn views her art – as explained referencing to her piece Bottled At the Source (Dive Wine)- “as a literal depiction of what I had read – realizing that people may be offended but my inspiration for the piece was solely rooted in the desire to ‘illustrate’ the written words which explained the communion.”

Freedom of voice and expression are natural birthrights, yet those rights require self-responsibility. The responsibility some feel is in those who make controversial statements or art and that’s a thin line but really, the responsibility rests on those who interpret what is ultimately one subjective view in a sea of billions. Clearly, it’s a self-made problem.

Ellyn’s paintings hardly seem something to fear and yet, so many do -not the paintings of course but their message which shakes faith just a bit if not a lot. That’s not new in the ways of confronting firm ideology over generations but if Dana Ellyn’s few religious themes provoke people to ask her questions, then she’s initiated some discussion while expressing her freedom of expression. When those very people twist things on her and, as the pastor example shows, basically spell out for her what she thinks and intends – aka assumption- then it feeds the fear of ”losing my religion” .

Dana Ellyn’s paintings are fresh interpretations of myth and reality and the absurdity which surrounds us daily. She plays with her inner child and together they paint a “new world” to adults who take themselves, their ideas and their God too seriously and literally. Lighten up. It’s only a painting and Jesus is only what one makes him to be and nothing more. Diversity demands tolerance. Tolerance requires freedom of expression and freedom of expression is what Americans advocate.  Some do, anyway.

UPDATE: 

Here’s the CNN article, which slants a bit in Ellyn’s favor.  It’s a good article.

Vigo County Sheriff Jon Marvel

Wins the Homo Walmartus idiocracy asshat flunkie of the week award. Here’s why.

Indiana… the Midwest’s Florida.

Glenn Beck’s WIPO Complaint

A very interesting case that Marc is handling.

He filed this Response (don’t forget the annexes) to Glenn Beck’s Complaint (exhibits included) yesterday.

UPDATE: He has requested that Mr. Beck stipulate to the First Amendment applying to these proceedings. I will update you when Beck responds.

ANOTHER UPDATE — ROUND TWO:

Glenn Beck filed a supplemental filing.
The Arbitrator accepted it and asked for a surreply.
The surreply — (and the exhibits to it)

Marc asked that LS’s editors/writers publish no further commentary on the case until a decision is rendered. However, there is commentary and analysis here.

He has further asked that any comments to this post should be respectful to both Mr. Beck and his attorneys.

New Copyright Czar, Background in Trade and Education

by Jason Fischer

Victoria the Not-so-Terrible

On Friday, President Obama appointed the first “Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator,” a new position created last year by the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act (a.k.a. the PRO-IP Act). While many criticized that legislation as further enlisting U.S. law enforcement to do the dirty work of the RIAA and MPAA, some of those same voices are praising the president’s choice of Victoria A. Espinel as a fair compromise.

“We believe she will be fair in her approach to intellectual property enforcement issues,” said Gigi Sohn, president of Public Knowledge, a left-leaning digital-rights advocacy group. (source)

This commentator hopes that Ms. Espinel’s understanding of the complex landscape of international trade, combined with a history in academics — where the value of citation and accretion is recognized over draconian exclusion — will help move copyright policy towards something a bit more sensible than life-plus-70.

---

This story has also been published on The Tactical IP Blog.

In Defense of “Sex Offenders”

Rogier van Bakel sticks up for sex offenders…. and there’s not a goddamned thing wrong with it.

Worst. Day. Ever.

For this guy.

Amazingly, this did not happen in Flori-duh!

Why Fat Chicks Are Hot

By Tatiana von Tauber

Confidence is the biggest motivator of hotness there is. I’ve been trying to figure out why exactly confidence is so enduring, sensual, erotic and empowering not from the standpoint of having confidence but viewing others with it. It’s just sexy when in its right doses. I think confidence is like a musk, a pheromone likeness that ignites the brain’s attraction zone. The ugliest people can be very attractive if they’re confident in their own skin (a sense of humor and reasonable intelligence helps too). I think the same for fat chicks.

One obstacle I face in attracting women to have erotic and boudoir photos taken is most of them think they’re fat.  For those who are, convincing them that weight has little to do with sexual and erotic confidence is like convincing a tween that the pimple on the face isn’t as big as she thinks it is.  The horror is all relative. It’s hard to run from external imprints especially with beauty magazines doing everything to make the average (and healthy weighted) woman feel like a fat pig.  

Plus size model, Crystal Renn

Now a plus size model, Crystal Renn, used to be “too thin for a size 0″ before the modeling industry broke her down into an all out eating jamboree after years of eating less than 1,000 calories a day. She’s now a healthy size 12. For many women, size 12 is fat (for the modeling industry it nears obesity) but if a size 12 woman can look hot  and an even larger woman (“Largely Lovely“) edge, if not pass an erotic look, then the answer to the puzzling question of why fat chicks are hot seems only imprinted in the level of confidence they hold with respect to body image.

Renn and the “Largely Lovely” model I photographed exhibit a this is me and I love it attitude.  When a fat chick* can get into a bikini or naked and be proud, that’s confidence and even those who don’t find larger bodies sexy seem surprised that for a moment their mind gave large women more credit than previously. That’s appealing because it has good potential for women. It’s a stepping stone for breaking down the barriers society – mainly modern media – has created about what constitutes an attractive woman. If capitalism gained on the enterprise of good character opposed to good body, most women today would feel more sexually confident and everyone would strive for better character. Ah.  I’m such the failing idealist.

With the American porn industry saturated with Barbie dolls and European markets drenched in “barely 18″ girls, mass media creating young adults out of teens and actresses role modeling plastic surgery to fit in, there’s a slice of the pie that’s missed and it’s the sex appeal the average to large woman can have.  Clearly it’s possible but just as for thin women, looking hot takes some effort.  There’s a clear line between the fat woman who possesses confidence in her style and one who just looks like a blown up beach ball with lots of large Hibiscus prints, respectfully.  Looking good and feeling good ignite confidence and all three require conscious effort.

While it would progress both genders, large women really ought to open up to new meanings and visions of what is and can be sexy and become it.  That’s where confidence sits.  Perhaps that’s why find it so appealing.  It’s nothing short of sexy.  As far as I’m concerned,  it’s always nice to see a sexy and confident woman no matter what her size.  They’re few and far between right now.  That makes Renn and others like her healthy role models for the socially indoctrinated, which is basically everyone.

* fat chick is, of course, relative as well

Stormtroopers’ 9/11

@Left-wing Nutjobs: Disagreeing with the President does NOT make me a racist

by Jason Fischer

An extremely disturbing trend has started to develop in the U.S. political landscape, which needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. It seems that the the left would like to start playing the “race card” every time someone disagrees with President Obama. Not only is this behavior irresponsible and childish, it only serves to breathe new life into the real race hatred that we would all hopefully like to see eliminated in this country.

Like most political rhetoric, this started out at the fringes of the left, but in recent weeks, it has made its way into popular media. Personally, I was offended when I read the following, which appeared in an early-August issue of the New York Times:

[T]he driving force behind the town hall mobs is probably the same cultural and racial anxiety that’s behind the “birther” movement, which denies Mr. Obama’s citizenship. (source)

Now I can’t say that I’m surprised that Paul Krugman would stoop to these kinds of distraction tactics, but I hoped that this was isolated. After all, Krugman is a second-rate political hack, who should stick to poorly reporting on economics. Whenever he starts pontificating about other subjects, most people know to ignore him. Unfortunately, his comments were just foreshadowing.

The most recent allegations of racially motivated dissent stem from Rep. Joe Wilson’s (R-SC) “outburst” during President Obama’s health care address last week. Again, the New York Times ran forward, pointing and shouting “RACIST!!!” rather than admitting that people may have legitimate reasons to disagree with the president’s proposed plan for reforming the health care system:

Wilson clearly did not like being lectured and even rebuked by the brainy black president presiding over the majestic chamber. (source)

The author of this piece of irresponsible journalism, Maureen Dowd, even suggested that Rep. Wilson’s behavior is clearly racist because no one has ever shouted at white presidents. Apparently, she didn’t cover
President Bush’s 2005 State of the Union Address or his appearance at Obama’s inauguration in January.

Now, I agree, yelling out “YOU LIE!!!” in the middle of Obama’s speech may not be the most constructive way of voicing Rep. Wilson’s opinion, but you have to admit that claiming we won’t be paying for medical coverage of illegal immigrants under the proposed plan is more than a little disingenuous. However, instead of debating the truth of the president’s claim, everyone’s clamoring about whether Rep. Wilson is a member of the KKK.

Now, the Congressional Black Caucus is getting on board, claiming that anyone who doesn’t support some kind of reprimand for Rep. Wilson must be a racist also:

And so I guess we’ll probably have folks putting on white hoods and white uniforms again and riding through the countryside intimidating people. … That’s the logical conclusion if this kind of attitude is not rebuked, and Congressman Wilson represents it. He’s the face of it. (source)

I could not disagree more. The “logical conclusion” that I see is an environment where everyone is loathe to voice any original thought on political issues, for fear of being branded a bigot. If you are the least bit paranoid, you would recognize that as thought control, and it should be called out as such whenever it rears its ugly head.

We Don’t Roll That Way

We don't roll that way

Ellen DeGeneres, aside from being annoying, also hires idiots.

She apparently used more than 1,000 copyrighted songs on her show without permission or paying royalties to the artists. Lets set aside whether, as a philosophical matter, she should have to.

Per papers filed at a U.S. District Court in Nashville on September 9th, when the labels asked the Ellen show producers how come they never sought to acquire permission to use the songs, the defendants replied that they didn’t “roll that way.” (source)

Homey don’t play dat!

The Seventh Rides Again in Support of the First Amendment

The Alameda Books rule boils down to this: If a city wants to ban a First Amendment protected business, it can only do so if it has evidence that its regulations actually might help do something about adverse secondary effects, the evidence can’t be complete bullshit, and the regulation can’t negatively impact the quality and amount of speech as a proxy for regulating the secondary effects.

There was a period of time in which courts did not seem to be embracing the Alameda books case. As simple and as light of a rule as it laid down, conservative judges were looking for any unprincipled way they could to give cities and towns a pass. Judge Easterbrook, the hero of American Booksellers Ass’n v. Hudnut, 771 F.2d 323 (7th Cir. 1985) has, in a pair of recent decisions, made it clear that in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, Alameda Books is alive and well.

Last week, I reported on a recent 7th Circuit decision affirming the principles laid down in Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc., 535 U.S. 425 (2002). In that posting, I discussed the Annex Books case, and how the City of Indianapolis is going to need to go back to the drawing board in its efforts to ban porn.

A city with a bit of a smaller stature, New Albany, Indiana just got its own Constitutional smackdown from the same court (and the same judge). Like many cities that catch Christ Fever, and decide to try and ban smut from their fair streets, New Albany knew that it couldn’t just outlaw porn shops. Accordingly, it made sure to repeat the magic words “adverse secondary effects.” However, like most cities, they didn’t come up with any scientific studies backing up their regulations, and showing how they might mitigate these phantom adverse secondary effects. New Albany’s hobgoblin “secondary effects” were crime and “litter.”

Apparently, the City of New Albany expected the court to believe that an adult bookstore that was closer to a church was more likely to cause crime than a store far from a church. Similarly, the city brought in a few citizens who anecdotally told stories of finding pornographic litter around adult bookstores. To “prove” that these effects would be mitigated by new regulations, New Albany trotted out some old studies of porn theaters, failing to see how a business that sells porn for take-out purposes might be a completely different animal.

In the district court, New Albany relied on studies conducted in cities across the country. Many of these show that a concentration of adult businesses in a part of a city is associated with higher crime and lower property values nearby. As we observed in Annex Books, Inc. v. Indianapolis, No. 05-1926 (7th Cir. Sept. 3, 2009), however, these studies principally reflect the effects of adult businesses that offer live entertainment or peep shows; they do not necessarily demonstrate that businesses selling books and DVDs have the same consequences for morals offenses (prostitution, lewd exhibition) or other kinds of crime. New Albany’s own expert “conceded that he knows of no research that shows . . . effects for various subclasses of businesses,” such as plaintiff’s retail-only store. 362 F. Supp. 2d at 1021.

Recognizing that prior studies had lumped bookstores, peep shows, and exotic dancing establishments together, New Albany offered some anecdotal justifications in the district court. It cited testimony in some earlier cases by people complaining about pornographic litter near adult bookstores, and it suggested that these stores may expose their customers to thefts. The former line of argument rests on the fact that some customers are bound to throw away wrappers, which may have images inappropriate for children. The “theft” line of argument starts with the premise that many customers of adult establishments pay in cash, which makes them a target for thieves. (Op. at 5-6)

The court trashed the city’s arguments, calling for customers to make their own risk assessments.

The norm under the first amendment is that government must combat harm to readers with disclosures rather than prohibitions of speech. See, e.g., Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748 (1976); American Booksellers Ass’n v. Hudnut, 771 F.2d 323 (7th Cir. 1985), aff’d mem., 475 U.S. 1001 (1986). Just as there is no hecklers’ veto over speech, there is no “thieves’ veto.” The police must protect the readers from the hecklers or thieves, rather than ease their workload by forbidding the speech. (Op. at 6)

As far as the City’s “litter” argument goes, the Court held that it was “perilously close” to violating the rule in Alameda Books that a city can’t reduce adverse secondary effects merely by reducing speech. If you sell 100 porn magazines and this produces 10 pieces of litter, it is no trick to reduce the litter by reducing the number of magazines sold. However, this is constitutionally impermissible.

The only way to cut litter by 10% may be to reduce sales by 10%, and such a justification would fail under [Alameda Books].(Op. at 9)

Sciopero dei Blog

Where were YOU during the great Italian blog strike of 2009?

Apparently Italian bloggers are on strike. It even seems like a damn good cause. Arthur Bright at the Citizen Media Law Project made me laugh though:

But is a strike really the way to go? Because it seems to me that the bloggers, as a group, are missing the most important element of a strike: economic influence. Bloggers aren’t exactly autoworkers. Industries don’t depend on bloggers showing up to work each day in order to avoid crippling economic losses. Heck, as the BBC article points out, Italians barely use the Internet: “More than half the population has no web access and one source puts average usage at just two hours a week.” That being the case, a bloggers’ strike is unlikely even to be noticeable to the Italian public. Really, the Italian bloggers’ strike reminds me of nothing so much as the South Park episode where Canada goes on strike, to “show the world how bad things would be without it.” (source)

The entire post is worth reading. The strike is due to proposed “right of reply” law being considered by the Italian parliament. This is the kind of regulation which would be clearly prohibited by the First Amendment if they tried it here. See Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974)

“Getting What She Deserves”: Stories of Vengeful Women Expand Cyberlaw Regulations

By Lateigra C. Cahill

A few weeks ago, Missouri officials arrested Elizabeth Thrasher (40), for posting a fake No-Strings-Attached-Sex ad on the Craigslist “Casual Encounters” section. The sex ad included the photograph, cell phone number, and place of employment of a 17-year-old girl (Thrasher’s ex-husband’s girlfriend’s daughter). Investigators say that the girl received phone calls, text messages and nude pictures as a result of the ad. Thrasher faces felony charges with up to four years in state prison.

This is the first arrest made under Missouri’s expansion of their harassment statute to address “cyberbullying” after the highly publicized Myspace Suicide Case.

Shortly after Thrasher’s arrest, Federal Judge George Wu acquitted Lori Drew (the Missouri mom in the Myspace case) on grounds of unconstitutional vagueness. Federal prosecutors charged Drew criminally under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) for breaching the Myspace “Terms of Service” agreement by creating a fictional boy’s profile to communicate with Megan prior to her suicide.

Despite the hard facts of the case, Judge Wu recognized the civil liberties at stake:

• First, Wu points out that under the void-for-vagueness doctrine, a statute (or in this case the “clickwrap”) must expressly define what prohibited behavior is a criminal offense and what is a civil offense. Here, ordinary people wouldn’t expect that creating a false profile (without the intention of doing something expressly criminal like, say, stealing money from someone) could be criminal.

• Second, Wu recognizes the large and sweeping effects on personal freedom that would result in criminal prosecution of “fake profiles”. Examples given by Wu in the opinion are 1) “lonely-hearts” that post photo-shopped pictures or give exaggerated stats, 2) people who post pictures of their friends at parties without their permission, and most strikingly, 3) 13-year-old Megan Meier’s own profile that falsly stated she was 14. (the Myspace Terms of Service requires that users be 14 or older.) Wu states that, “No one would seriously suggest that Megan’s conduct was criminal. . .” (pg 30 of the Opinion)

Federal prosecutors were grasping for straws to convict Drew under the CFAA, but in my opinion it may not have been out of desperation for justice. The fact is that Drew’s conviction would’ve vastly expanded prosecutorial discretion and the feds often target highly gendered and sexualized situations to make power grabs because they are so sensationalized in the media. (The vengeful older woman/mom, the internet “boy” crush, the blonde pre-teen with braces who commits suicide—all factors that spark our unconscious interest in the case and drive the public’s thirst for justice.)

So it’s no coincidence that the first arrest in Missouri under the revised harassment statue had facts that not only mirrored Drew’s case, but were even more sexualized than Drew’s case. (The No-strings-attached-sex, the ex-husband’s girlfriend’s barely legal daughter, the nude pictures.) It just seems highly unlikely that this is the only prank ad that’s been posted on Craigslist in Missouri lately, yet it’s the first arrest that’s been made under this law.

Fear driven by unconscious prejudice is the most powerful device for urging citizens to willingly relinquish constitutional rights. If you need an example, think about the racist-fueled-fear that legitimized the US PATRIOT act in the minds of normally big-government-hating conservatives.

Vengeful, jealous, manipulative women (read – too emotional and unable to be controlled by “men” a.k.a. society) that prey on beautiful young girls (read – passive victims that need protection from society) are classic Jungian/biblical archetypes. Archetypes and stereotypes are the source for most forms of prejudice in our society which in turn are used to motivate fear and submission to the institutions that have been established to “protect” us.

As long as federal prosecutors and legislatures can find sexualized female targets to enrage us, we won’t even question the expansion of cyberlaw regulations and our loss of individual freedoms. Sacrifices will have to be made, because these crazy-vengeful-bitches need to be stopped.

Editor’s Note: Please Welcome Lateigra Cahill as the latest Satyriconista!

LaTeigra is a law student at University of California, Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco. LaTeigra’s main legal interests are free speech rights, anti-censorship issues, government suppression, cyber law, art and politics. LaTeigra is the Co-Chair/Co-Founder of Hastings Advocates for the Arts, an active student organization that promotes freedom of self expression through integrating visual and performance arts into law school culture.

We’re Still Thinking of You….

I got an interesting email today. I have redacted the identifying information just to be nice.

Dear Marc,

Good afternoon. Just a quick note to let you know that you are still being considered for new opportunities by [REDACTED] in [Florida]. If your contact information or status has changed at all, please feel free to update us. Additionally, please feel free to email an updated copy of your resume at your convenience.

Thank you for your continued interest in [REDACTED].

So I wrote back:

Dear [REDACTED]

I’ve never heard of you

And I then got this reply:

Marc,

Thanks for your note. The resume we have on file is from 2001. We use to be known as REDACTED, but went through a rebranding years back.

If you are no longer interested in hearing about new opportunities, I can remove your name from our distribution list. If you’d like to continue to receive updates regarding new opportunities, please feel free to send an updated resume along.

Thank you.

[REGIONAL MANAGER]

You know, that was kind of sweet. Imagine if I was sitting here on my ass, still unemployed after 8 years. This would have come right in the knick of time!

“God is not Religion”

This is for you, Conway!

The state of Kentucky passed a law requiring the Emergency Operations Center of their Department of Homeland Security to post a plaque stating the following:

The safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God.

Before your “are you shitting me-o-meter” goes to 11, don’t worry. Franklin Circuit Judge Thomas Wingate ruled that the “reliance on Almighty God” part of it violated the Establishment Clauses of both the U.S. and the Kentucky Constitutions.

“The statute pronounces very plainly that current citizens of the Commonwealth cannot be safe, neither now, nor in the future, without the aid of Almighty God. Even assuming that most of this nation’s citizens have historically depended upon God, by choice, for their protection, this does not give the General Assembly the right to force citizens to do so now.” (source)

State Rep. Tom Riner, D-Louisville, a pastor of Christ is King Baptist Church in Louisville, and the piece of white trash who inserted the unconstitutional language into the Kentucky law books was, well, pretty interesting with his reaction.

“They make the argument … that it has to do with a religion,” Riner said, “and promoting a religion. God is not a religion. God is God.” (source)

Of course, just when you thought it was safe to drive south of the Mason-Dixon Line, the Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway is appealing the ruling.