Main Entry: 2censor
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): cen·sored; cen·sor·ing /’sen(t)-s&-ri[ng], ’sen(t)s-ri[ng]/
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <censor the news>; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable <censor out indecent passages>

If the glove fits wear it. Your comments are very self centered. Guess it would not have been ok if their action disagreed with your point of view. It’s a good thing for this country that free speech doesn’t work the way you portray it. You really should go find a civics 101 refresher class that you can take somewhere, you need it badly.

To quote Inigo Montoya, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

Or, to put it another way, I doubt that it’s censorship and here’s my reason: the artist is not being restricted from showing his work in all possible venues, only from this particular venue. Censorship would prohibit him from displaying his work anywhere at any time.

What you’re describing is, at most, a potential breach-of-contract, depending on the terms of the agreement between the artist and the museum.

Now, if you really believe that William Gentry deserves a venue in which to exercise his right to free speech, you’d arrange an alternate venue for his work. In fact, the Customs House Museum has an auditorium that seats 200 and is available for rent. You should call Terri Jordan at (931) 648-5780, ext 38 and find out how much it costs to rent the room. Then you can either pay for it yourself, or together with some friends. Have Gentry do a short lecture on what he was trying to say, and allow everyone who attends to examine his work at close range.

Boycotting the museum is easy–anyone can just not show up. Let’s see where the rubber meets the road for you on this issue.

If the museum never approved the display, then yes it wouldn’t fall under free speech. But in these circumstances it clearly does. My statements are dead on target. I don’t agree with the artist’s action. I just defend his right to take them.  Become more  informed on the situation before making definitive statements on the matter. I appreciate your comments though.

Read about the story on MSNBC.com, so congratulations on the nationwide quote. However, you’re wrong about the free speech and censorship issues.

Free Speech. While the Constitution does guarantee free speech, it does not require anyone with a platform to allow people to speak from it. William Gentry has a right to put together anything he wants and call it art; he does not have the right to demand that the Customs House Museum display it. To illustrate the point: does al-Qaida have the right to demand that the four major networks air an hour-long lecture, in Arabic, on why America is evil, capped by the live beheading of a hostage?

Censorship. Every time someone decides not to publish or display something potentially offensive, civil liberties people go off on censorship. This is a misuse of the word. Censorship is a governmental suppression of speech. No one has claimed that a government agency has prohibited the display of this work. The museum has simply decided that it is not in its best interests to continue the display. Gentry is perfectly free to find some other organization to put his work on display.

If you don’t agree with the museum’s decision, you are, of course, perfectly free to cease your patronage of the place. But your rhetoric is overblown.

Allen McPheeters
Lynnwood, WA