Harvard's self-appointed feminist thought police(wo)men, sophomore Amy Keel and her unnamed room-mate, may be disappointed to learn that their destruction of the nine-foot-tall, anatomically precise snow phallus erected recently in Harvard Yard has not rid the earth of offensive ice sculpture. Obscene snow scuptures are busting out all over: in Kent, Ohio, Crystal Lynn was contacted by police after they received an anonymous complaint about her "inappropriate snow sculpture" (thanks to reader William D. for the link). Lynn had crafted a snow-woman replete with celery eyes, carrot nose, and two blobs of snow for breasts. A policeman showed up at Lynn's door minutes after she finished sculpting. "He said that I should cut off her breasts, but I said no woman wants that," Lynn reported. Worried that she might be charged with disorderly conduct if she left the statue au naturel, Lynn draped a tablecloth around her shoulders to create a cape-like effect: "She looked really good, like she was getting ready to go to a party," she said. But when she learned that the officer was simply passing on an anonymous complaint, she restored her snow-woman to all her original full-breasted glory. A similar case occurred in Salt Lake City, where Kevin Dille and Dawn Napples collaborated on his and hers snowpeople. Ironically, what inflamed the sensibilities of the neighbors was their attempt to be sensitive: they covered their snowpeople's privates (jingle bells for him, three well-placed maple leaves for her) in an attempt to honor the modesty of their creations. But a prude's work is never done, and the police received complaints about the "offensive" manner in which, in covering the snowpeople's genital areas, the sculptors drew attention to them.

Meanwhile, in a clear violation of internet standards of decency, treehuggercreations.com displays this smutty photograph of a snow sculpture entitled, "Snowblower." Treehuggercreations is not alone in its propagation of snow porn, as this image suggests. It is not titled, but I like to call it "The Ice Man Cometh."

Truly, a feminist censor's work is never done. Perhaps Keel can get a travel grant to go knock down Lynn's boobalicious snow woman. Maybe she could get some course credit for launching a campaign to ban all pornographic snow photos from the web. The possibilities are endless. She might even be able to get an honors thesis out of her censorious ice capade: as every proper academic feminist knows, resistance is meaningless unless it is properly theorized.

Or, Keel could do the more difficult thing: commence the slow, hard process of shedding the protective ideological skin of radical feminist claptrap and grow up. One concerned blog reader has taken it upon herself to give Keel some guidance on this point, should she choose to accept it. Here are excerpts from the letter she sent to Keel (italicized lines are from Keel's explanation for why she destroyed the snow phallus):

Dear Amy,

People like you make me embarrassed to call myself a feminist. Do you realize what a parody of a radical women's studies major you sound like? No, probably you don't, because everyone else at Radcliffe is as far out in left field as you are, and nobody who could breathe some fresh air and common sense into the debate is allowed to speak up without being punished.

The penis "sculpture" was not an official Harvard installation, and the men who put it up had no permission to do so. It was perfectly within my rights to take down this object which was incredibly offensive to me.

Uh-huh. You know, I thought going to college meant being exposed to the points of view of other people, not being sheltered from the sight or sound of anything you might deem "offensive." Does your viewpoint mean if, say, the gay students' organization puts up a display on proper condom use without university permission, conservative and/or religious students who are offended by it have the right to take it down? And I mean a logical right, not a right or lack thereof according to your double standards (i.e., "womyn" and "gender minorities" and "people of color" have the right, whereas "oppressive white males" don't).

As a student of Harvard University, neither I, nor any other woman, should have to see this obscene and grossly inappropriate thing on my way to class. No one should have to be subjected to an erect penis without his or her express permission or consent.

Sweetie, you weren't subjected to an erect penis. You were subjected to a snow sculpture. I realize all you post-modernist types think that words, thoughts or representations are the literal equivalents of actions, but understand that most rational, intelligent human beings can tell the difference.

And not all women would find a snow penis offensive. I, for one, would have laughed long and loud. So would many other women of my acquaintance.

Many women and men, including myself, are the victims of sexual assault, child sexual abuse and rape.

Oh, I see. The entire world has to change to cater to your collective traumata. You know what? I know quite a few men and women who were sexually abused or assaulted, and they were able to get on with their lives and deal with human sexuality in its myriad and often impolite forms, rather than turn into professional victims and bitter enemies of any form of masculinity.

The unwanted image of an erect penis is an implied threat; it means that we, as women, must be subject to erect penises whether we like it or not.

Of course. It couldn't just be a tasteless joke, could it? Especially to those who have no sense of humor. Or perspective.

There was nothing "challenging" or "subversive" about the penis. The only thing it did was create an uncomfortable environment for the women of Harvard University.

And, again, Ghoddess FORBID we make anyone uncomfortable, even if it means we have to destroy things that others have taken great time and effort to make. I mean, feelings are more important than respect for other people's property, right?

Once again--what my roommate and I did was not cowardly, but instead quite brave.

And war is peace. And freedom is slavery. And ignorance is bliss. That reminds me, I gotta order me some George Orwell books from Amazon.com. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

These men felt that it was their right to build this pornographic sculpture whose only purpose could be to assert male dominance.

Right, because again, jokes don't exist in your universe.

I am dismayed that The Crimson chose to both publish the picture of the snow penis and Esensten's commentary, both of which were extremely offensive.

Yep, "anyone's opinion who differs from mine" = "offensive." Amy, as much as I wince at the thought of you indoctrinating future students with your wild-eyed and ultimately poisonous ideology, I think you should definitely seek out a career in academia. You wouldn't last very long in the real world.

I am so grateful I graduated college before political correctness took over completely. Otherwise, I never would have discovered that there are better systems of political thought out there than leftism in all its incarnations, including radical feminism.

Thus opines Amy Keel:

"As a student of Harvard University, neither I, nor any other woman, should have to see this obscene and grossly inappropriate thing on my way to class. No one should have to be subjected to an erect penis without his or her express permission or consent."

In 2000, Penn State University sponsored an event called "Cuntfest" (described here). According to this report in academia.org, Cuntfest was funded by $10,000 of involuntary student activity fees, and featured "a statue of a giant vagina that spouted fruit juice and the screening of a film called Butt F---ing Bunny. On-stage events included a woman sharpening pencils with a pencil-sharpener inserted in her vagina, a puppeteer using her own breasts as puppets, and such advice from speakers as, 'don't snack on a carrot after it has been in your ass.' One lecturer described her forthcoming novel about a female serial killer who murders men and boys. The co-director of the event explained, 'I don't want to name it that way, but [the enemy] is the white, heterosexual male.'"

Spot the double standard.

Leonard, I don't know how accurate your analogy is here. In my view, Penn State's Cuntfest "celebrations" and Harvard's penis sculpture are both disturbing and offensive, but the Cuntfest events at least seem to have had the written approval of the University and the implicit consent of conference participants. The penis sculpture, by contrast, had been constructed without University consent in a public area through which students had to pass on their way to class. To me there seems a huge difference between the performative (if tasteless) exhibition of breasts and genitalia at a private conference and the construction of a lewd sculpture in a public area. Furthermore, it seems that a written rationale for Cuntfest had been accepted by University authorities, but the sculpture had no clear rationale at all other than to outrage and offend passers-by (the main target being feminist women, I would imagine).

You also should not describe Cuntfest as entirely uncontroversial. The article to which you link states that police originally removed an advertising banner because they found the c-word offensive. They restored the banner hours later only after the conference organizer produced written University authorization for its reinstatement. I can't see how a public sculpture of an erect penis is any more or less offensive than the word "cunt" on public display, but at least the latter had the approval of University authorities.

Here is what I consider to be a better analogy. If a stripper exposes herself within the confines of a striptease club, she is not breaking the law because (a) the people present have implicitly agreed to witness nudity and (b) nudity in that forum has the approval of city authorities in the form of a zoning license, etc. But a woman who exposes herself on a public street can be arrested for indecent exposure. The people present have not consented to see nudity, and such displays are not appropriate for a public street. Maybe I'm way off base here. But I don't think this is as much of a double standard as you make it out to be. I think it's more about differences in context.

Modesty is a Virtue II

The problem with snow pornography is that it reduces the human person to an anatomical part, and ones that are normally hid from view. The only reason to display these parts is to excite Lust, which is a vice, or to excite disgust, which is rude.

The only body part routinely emphasized in art is the head, as in a bust. That is because the face is the index of the mind. It is an attempt to catch the person as an individual. When modeling the private parts one might as well model the pancreas for all the individuality it shows.

On those occasions where display is required it should be done as discretely as possible. Snow pornography is neither necessary nor discrete in any way.

Kelli,

I think your post places undue emphasis on "written university authorization," which is really not a significant issue here at all. Both Harvard and Penn State endorse the principles of free speech and open expression -- Harvard by choice, Penn State by constitutional mandate. In accordance with these principles, neither university administration can require written authorization for acts of personal, artistic, or political expression -- it can forbid such acts when they violate clearly-stated content-neutral prohibitions or restrictions, but not otherwise.

The Penn State case was complicated only by the fact that the Feminist Majority Leadership Alliance (FMLA) obtained event funding from the University Park Allocation Committee (UPAC), while giving UPAC no indication that their proposed event would include material many students (each of whom contributes $38 annually toward the student activities fee) might not condone. Asked afterwards to comment on the use of these fees to subsidize pornographic films and sexually explicit performance art, UPAC chairman Eddie Elizondo stated, "Wow, that is not at all what was conveyed to [UPAC] about what would be happening at that event." Note, too, that event co-director Missy Mazzaferro told reporters ahead of time that the event would feature no explicit or pornographic material. This suggests that FMLA lied to UPAC to obtain student activities funding, lied to the press to ward off unwanted attention, then claimed First Amendment protection when their event drew adverse publicity.

The Harvard case is much simpler: one group of students sculpted an erect penis out of snow; another group decided that the sculpture "create[d] an uncomfortable environment for the women of Harvard University" and took it upon themselves to destroy it. Intentionally destroying "offensive" works of art (even temporary ones such as snow sculptures) is clearly censorious, and goes against the principles Harvard professes to uphold. It remains to be seen whether Harvard will pursue disciplinary action against the defiant Amy Keel and her unnamed accomplice(s). Naturally it should, but universities have a sad history of ignoring such infractions when the culprits draw moral justification from progressive political agendas.

Regardless, no complex analogies are necessary here. Performance art and sculpture are both constitutionally protected forms of expression, and if Penn State's feminists can claim First Amendment protection for the lewd acts of their "performance artists," Harvard snow sculptors should be able to claim it for their snow-penis. This is the simple principle of content neutrality in action.

Dear AB,

You write: The only reason to display these parts is to excite Lust which is a vice." Forgive me if I missed the inherent sarcasm in your post - but lust is a vice? I'm sorry but I do not agree. I always thought of lust as an elemental virtue, one which is ingrained specifically to ensure the propogation [sic] of the species. In the immortal words of Luther INgram - "If lovin you is wonrg, I don't want to be right."
You also state: "The only body part routinely emphasized in art is the head, as in a bust." I'm not quite sure how to respond except that I seem to recall seeing a lot of body parts (paintings, sculpture, etc.) whenever I go to any art museum. I do take your point, however, that for the most part a face tells us more than a breast - or a pancreas.

Dear Kelli, I thought you made an important distinction between a sanctioned and a non-sanctioned event. I think the point I took from the previous comments was that I doubt whether a Univeristy would have santioned a "Prick-Fest" event. I also think the strip-club analogy is a good one. Personally, I would prefer to not see icy-penises (oy - shrinkage) or juice-spurting vaginas - but the images do not offend me - they just make me despair for the long term survival of society. :) There is a bigger picture issue here for me. To my mind there does seem to be an increasing disconnect between the prisms through which we view the penis and vagina. Penis displays, such as the snow sculpture are routinely dismissed (and maybe correctly so) as puerile acts imposed on us by immature dumbed-down college males. On the other hand (and see the Vagina Monologues link for more) perofrmance art pieces, sculptures, and exhibition about the vagina (or even ruder terms) are sometimes seen as ground-breaking acts of growing maturity on the part of women. God bless them for doing anything to help boost their self-esteem - but I have trouble believing it is any less immature than some frat-boy streaking across the Quad. At least the men (or boys) do not nor cannot pretend that their displays are anything but infantile, while vagina-displays are defended with some of the most obstruse post-structural word forms I have ever seen. Personally, I have no intrinsic animus towards either the vagina or penis but on the other hand I feel no compelling need to subtantially transform my 'baser' appreciation for the anatomy into a higher, esoteric, pursuit.

Lust vs. Love

Ivan:

You are confusing Lust and Love. It is certainly necessary for men and women to desire each other, but it must be confined to marriage, where love and the openness for children must predominate.

Lust, the simple animal desire for anotherís body, is always a vice. Outside of marriage it risks bringing children into the world without the support of a family. Modern chemistry does not eliminate this risk. Even within marriage Lust must be mastered and controlled lest it lead to discord and too many children.

It is Love which motivates a man and wife to care for each other, as well as their children, in good times and bad. It has nothing to do with raging hormones.

I suspect the sentiments of Luther Ingramís song could be better rendered, ìIf lusting for you is wrong, I donít want to be right.î

As for the body in art, if you walk through a good art museum you will see few body parts rendered disconnected from the body. A bust is one of the few contrary examples. It is the head and face is vitally important to the true artist, not the parts that should be hidden.

Angus,

So suppose a group of Harvard males decided to stand along the pathways in the nude and call it performance art? I think you've provided a nice summation of how the intellect unguided by prudence gets around to justifying what ought to be despised. Looking at the picture of the middle-aged man who made a suggestive snow couple, I couldn't help but think how creepy it is to revel in such prolongued adolescence.

Anyway, it seems clear to me that Ms. Keel's was, in actually, a public display of performance art utilizing the same free and public medium as the boys (probably) whose parents are financing their own hiatus from progress toward maturity.

It might be of interest to note that the Harvard Crimson reports that the male who put up the ice-phallus stated that Ms. Keel had as much right to tear down the sculpture as he had to put it up. See link in article posted on Andrew Sullivan's blog.

Greetings AB and thanks for your response.
I don't really think I confuse lust and love. We may disagree as to which is essential to the survivial of the species but that does not nor should it imply that I am confused about the words and their meanings. For me, from a purely physiological point of view it is not the metaphyiscal (or spiritual for that matter) concept of love that ensures the survival of the species but the physiological and embeded genetic pleasures associated with sex. Love may ensure the survival of our souls - but lust is what populates the planet. The concept of lust as always being a vice is just a subject over which we wil have to agree to disagree. There is not a lot of room for debate in a world of absolutes.

I agree with you that you will see few pieces of work that have body parts disconnected from the body. Neither a phallus nor a vagina standing alone have any real meaning absent connection to a body and it is the absence of real meaning that leads me to conclude that these pranks are silly and puerile. Are they a sign that the apocal;ypse is upon us? Oh, I think we passed that point along time ago.

Ivan

Justin,

I think you've provided a nice summation of how the intellect unguided by prudence gets around to justifying what ought to be despised.

Alas, your post exemplifies how prudence untempered by principle can form the basis for widespread censorship. Nobody is asking you to approve of feminist performance art or phallic snow sculpture. But living in a free society entails (a) respecting the rights of others to express themselves personally, artistically, and politically in ways you might find despicable and (b) condemning those who would deny such rights.

Ms. Keel's was, in actually, a public display of performance art....

Destroying things we find artistically or politically detestable is itself "performance art"? That's a widespread but facile argument. For instance, German composer Karlheinz Stockhausen called the World Trade Center attacks "the greatest work of art ever," while British artist David Hirst callously described them as "visually stunning." If we can redescribe the September 11 attacks as constitutionally protected performance art, we can justify any destructive act, no matter how cowardly or criminal.

Angus,

I think our society too often flaunts and, thereby, degrades freedom of expression. Just as children cannot be allowed complete freedom, so too, adults who have not matured beyond childhood require lessons in social propriety when dealing in the public square, as it were. What a sad commentary on our culture that condemning a snow sculpture worthy of pre-teens is said to be "the basis for widespread censorship." What about the rights of those who don't share the cultural insouciance to go about their day without being accosted by so nakedly offensive an "expression"?

As for the "performance art" comment: of course, I was joking, mirroring those who would raise up snow pornography to the level of art. For myself, I'd have taken the time, rather than to destroy it, to cover it or add to it in some clever way — that is, if my schedule left me with so little to do as, apparently, Harvard students find to be the case.

Ivan:

One of my pet peeves is people who use, ìLoveî where they should use, ìLust.î It seems to be endemic, so I may use the word a little differently than most.

It is not Lust which holds a father to his children, nor a mother to her children. Children are too often the unexpected and unwelcome results of the only thing that can produce children. Being unwelcome they are too often abandoned and neglected.

There is a natural desire of a man and wife for each other and for children that is good and is not Lust. That occurs when the desire for each other breaks its proper bounds.

But far from being the key to the propagation of the species, Lust is not even required to set the ball rolling on children. This can be observed by the behavior of infertile couples who submit to all sorts of strange procedures in order to have children. There is a strong and natural desire for children which is separate from any desire for the method of getting them.

Justin,

You ask: What about the rights of those who don't share the cultural insouciance to go about their day without being accosted by so nakedly offensive an "expression"?

Here you endorse the concept of university speech codes, rules that grant students exactly what you ask for: a special "right ... to go about their day without being accosted by ... offensive ... expression." Some recommended reading on the topic of speech codes:

* The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education's statement on free speech.

* The first chapter of Alan Kors and Harvey Silverglate's The Shadow University describes a late-night encounter between University of Pennsylvania freshman Eden Jacobowitz and a group of black sorority sisters partying beneath his dorm room window. An irritated Jacobowitz yelled to the noisy women, "Shut up, water buffalo!" The problem? The women had a university-given "right" not to encounter offensive expression.

* Harvey A. Silverglate's "Memo to Free Speech Advocates, University of Wisconsin-Madison" discusses legal and constitutional issues pertaining to speech codes.

Best,
Angus

Angus,

Any area in society will have a de facto "speech code." The question is how restrictive it ought to be in a given scenario, balancing the free expression necessary to maintain an open society and the respect for others' sensibilities required to maintain a mixed society. There seems to me quite a bit of room between a snow erection and the boundary where begins dangerous censorship, particularly in the most public area on the campus: outside.

AB, you write: Lust, the simple animal desire for anotherís body, is always a vice.

Not all of us subscribe to the belief that "animal desires" are "vices," which stems from the body/spirit dichotomy found most notably but not exclusively in certain Christian theologies. In other words, I don't consider the enjoyment of sex, food, or any other physical pleasure a lesser one than those of, say, reading, debating, enjoying art, or meditating.

You also write, Lust is not even required to set the ball rolling on children.

And children need not be the product of lust -- or, as I prefer to write, desire. Birth control and abortion are available to those who do not object to them, as well as forms of sex that do not lead to fertilization.

Those who object to using such things need not use them. Those who object to others using them should remember that desire unfettered by procreation is one of those wonderful things that divide us from the rest of the animal kingdom. :-)

I should add to my post above that I am not trying to start an abortion debate. I am aware that many people object to abortion because they believe human life begins at conception, and there are already a vast number of places online where this debate may be taken up. I was more referring to people who object to anything that circumvents conception because they consider the separation of sex and procreation "wrong."

Justin,

Any area in society will have a de facto "speech code."

No, it won't. And here's why:

"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."

Angus

Angus,

You're dodging.

1) Laws are not "de facto."

2) Urging propriety or even encouraging Harvard to have an explicit "no sexual snow sculptures on the quad" policy does not involve Congress in the slightest.

It's a dangerous path (just shy of nonsequitur) to begin suggesting that moral judgment cannot be passed because the government cannot (and should not) be the locus of that judgment. Even so, you'd be hard-pressed to show that the snow sculpture was property upon which the budding censor could not express her own opinion.

--- Justin

Justin -

De facto speech codes exist within each of us, but do not exist in society as a whole. There are phrases and words I would never utter or wish to hear and this stops me from using those words. Additionally, at times I find myself in a situation or with company that make me censor myself out of respect for others feelings. But this is always a choice I am making. The dangerous path is when universities, homeowner associations, and other organizations begin telling me what is and is not appropriate to say. Hateful, nasty speech should be met with thoughtful and firm refutation. What constitutes respecting others sensibilities is a decision each individual must make, never universities or student groups with political agendas and hidden animosities. Allowing groups to decide what is offensive and then punish those who fall outside those prescribed parameters is tantamount to a new inquisition. Not being offended is not a right. Every time you endorse the notion that being offended is a violation of your rights you create a culture in which the easiest way to quiet dissent is by claiming offense. Protecting free speech by limiting who can practice it is the intellectual brother of the idea that to save the village we had to destroy it.

Regenleif:

You write: ìNot all of us subscribe to the belief that "animal desires" are "vices," which stems from the body/spirit dichotomy found most notably but not exclusively in certain Christian theologies. In other words, I don't consider the enjoyment of sex, food, or any other physical pleasure a lesser one than those of, say, reading, debating, enjoying art, or meditating.î

Animal desires, within their proper bounds, are not vices. The vice occurs when the desire exceeds its proper place. There is no vice to enjoying sex within its proper place within marriage. The simple desire for anotherís body is not proper, even within marriage. Likewise there is no vice in not only eating but enjoying food, provided it does not extend to Gluttony. Is Gluttony not a vice? Why do our doctors and so many others bemoan overweight America? All of these vices have consequences in the real world.

The same is true of our other desires: each in its proper place. This extends to the pleasures of the intellect such as reading, debating, enjoying art, or meditating. They are valuable things, but like all things, prone to abuse.

You also note, ìAnd children need not be the product of lust -- or, as I prefer to write, desire. Birth control and abortion are available to those who do not object to them, as well as forms of sex that do not lead to fertilization.î

Modern chemistry is imperfect and the act by which children are produced will produce children. Modern drugs may greatly reduce the chance of this happening, but they can not prevent it entirely. Neither can you avoid the debate on abortion. Once a child is conceived the questions then becomes what to do with the child: destroy her through abortion, or allow her to live and be born.

Sex was clearly intended by nature for the transmission of life: either of children or of disease. Various strange forms may not lead to children, but will lead to disease. A number of these forms have lead to public health disasters requiring the expenditure of billions of dollars.

You also note, ìAB, while I agree with your final paragraph, be aware that modesty is not "hard-wired into the human person." Little children often run around naked with no sense of shame. It's only when they become acculturated that they realize this is inappropriate.î

The hard-wiring is there, although it may take a few years to manifest itself. Very small children may not feel shame, but by the time they reach the age of reasonóand even before--they full well know that some parts of the body must be covered. Try and uncover those parts in public and you will get a reaction not only from the police, but from the child.

Although the precise details of what may be exposed and when may vary across time, place, and culture, the existence of these limits is universal. They are also strikingly consistent in their essentials.

You site a couple of counter examples. A nudist camp is defiantly a fringe activity enjoyed only by a few and then only in isolation from society at large. The other is pornography. It is true that there is a strong desire and demand for it, but it is consumed in the dark and in privateópeople are rightly ashamed of being connected with it. In both cases Modesty exacts some tribute from the vice.

Justin,

1) Laws are not "de facto."

First, the U.S. Constitution is not a law: it underpins the law. Second, the Constitution trumps any "de facto" speech code.

2) Urging propriety or even encouraging Harvard to have an explicit "no sexual snow sculptures on the quad" policy does not involve Congress in the slightest.

Your previous post referred not to "Harvard University" but to "any area in society." There's a huge difference. Harvard, being a private educational establishment, is not legally obliged to respect the First Amendment. And yet Harvard voluntarily chooses to uphold free speech and open expression. A handy summary of this commitment may be found in Harvard's Guidelines on Free Speech, adopted in 1990:

"Because no other community defines itself so much in terms of knowledge, few others place such a high priority on freedom of speech. As a community, we take certain risks by assigning such a high priority to free speech. We assume that the long-term benefits to our community will outweigh the short-term unpleasant effects of sometimes noxious views. Because we are a community united by a commitment to rational processes, we do not permit censorship of noxious ideas. We are committed to maintaining a climate in which reason and speech provide the correct response to a disagreeable idea."

A university that "does not permit censorship of noxious ideas" is extremely unlikely to instate your proposed "no sexual snow sculptures on the quad" policy.

Even so, you'd be hard-pressed to show that the snow sculpture was property upon which the budding censor could not express her own opinion.

Amy Keel was perfectly free to express her opinion of the sculpture. But Ms. Keel did not express an opinion; instead, she committed a destructive act. Again, there's a big difference. If I find Serrano's Piss Christ offensive, for example, I'm perfectly free to decry it in print. I'm not free to go to the museum and smash it.

Angus

The critic has as much right to destroy the snow penis as the orginal artists did to create it, given that it's an inherently impermanent blob of snow in a public place. However, I think it would have been classier to:

a) Laugh and walk on.
b) Reduce the size of the snow penis.
c) Add a snow knife.

There was nothing "challenging" or "subversive" about the penis.

So "challenging" and "subversive" speech should have more protection than regular speech? Typical left-wing mindset...

This seems an issue on which a lot of shots hit just around the target.

Dakota:
Allowing groups to decide what is offensive and then punish those who fall outside those prescribed parameters is tantamount to a new inquisition.
— We're not talking castration of the sculptor, here. We're also not talking about dark-room/bright-light interrogation of college students to discover whether they have impure urges to sculpt nasty things in the snow. This isn't a "slippery slope"; in fact, I daresay it's quite a new innovation that anybody thinks to defend such puerile trash.

Not being offended is not a right.
— Who says? Do I have a right to sit in my backyard and not have some kid stroll up to me and shout "Geek!" in my ear? How about "Jew" in public? Will my daughter, when she's older (than 1 year) have a right to walk to school without grown men unrolling pornographic posters in front of her? Of course, there's balance, and the de facto standards are purely internal.

Every time you endorse the notion that being offended is a violation of your rights you create a culture in which the easiest way to quiet dissent is by claiming offense.
— We already live in that culture, and more than I'd like, myself.

Protecting free speech by limiting who can practice it is the intellectual brother of the idea that to save the village we had to destroy it.
— First, I'm not talking about limiting who can practice it; I don't care who sculpted the penis. Second, your corollary is false. Cultivating tacit boundaries on speech (limiting by mutual understanding) does not destroy the "village" of free speech; it ensures that citizens are not aloud to dig so deeply in their construction that the foundations collapse.

Angus:

the Constitution trumps any "de facto" speech code.
— The Constitution relies on many "de factos," including the morality that is meant to be bolstered by other realms of society. It is a governmental document, not a complete guide to societal structure.

Your previous post referred not to "Harvard University" but to "any area in society." There's a huge difference. ... A university that "does not permit censorship of noxious ideas" is extremely unlikely to instate your proposed "no sexual snow sculptures on the quad" policy.
— This is a favorite of those with whom I argue on this issue. At no point have I suggested punishment of the students who created the sculpture, much less encouraged laws. What I find truly dangerous in the current cultural climate are the implications that what ought not be done by force of the government cannot be done by individuals and private organizations (e.g., smashing the erection). In essence, this restricts one side of the balance by force of the government).

But Ms. Keel did not express an opinion; instead, she committed a destructive act. Again, there's a big difference. If I find Serrano's Piss Christ offensive, for example, I'm perfectly free to decry it in print. I'm not free to go to the museum and smash it.
— So why can't I claim that the sculptor destroyed the snow as it had been constituted? Also, note how you've shifted all of the crucial variables in your comparison: a clearly attributed work, constructed of individually owned components, placed within the context of a museum. At any rate, I tend to suspect (as I wrote somewhere around here) that the same outrage would not accompany the destruction of a nine-foot snow crucifix.

Nonetheless, as I've already said, I believe that answering the affront of the sculpture was not done in the most effect, creative, or clever way. Transforming it into something else would have been a much better way to go.

AB excoriates:
"Lust, the simple animal desire for anotherís body, is always a vice."

EXCUSE ME!~That's your morality--not mine.

We are talking about a public space here (even if also owned by Harvard University), where I believe public expression is welcomed, even when offending (e.g., flag burning).

Since when is Haaavard to be the "moral" equal of Falwell's Liberty University?

--Orson

Why do radical feminists assume they are the highest authority on the significance and implications of the penis? As a gay man, I find this profoundly homophobic for it invalidates a whole subclass of society who are not merely threatened by a phallic symbol but are also actually in love with the real thing. The penis may have a different meaning for radical feminists, but to assume they are the sole audience for its symbolism further marginalizes and robs the other subclasses, already the targets of systematic discrimination, equal access to the penis as well as freedom from harassment for their views. In this regard, the radical feminists are no different from the religious right which would deny gay men the right to a relationship with the penis and which would portray such a relationship as immoral and unworthy of a "place at the table."

AB, you write, There is no vice to enjoying sex within its proper place within marriage. Then you contradict yourself: The simple desire for another’s body is not proper, even within marriage.

Oy. This reminds me of the medieval clergy who instructed married couples to have sex through a board (Christians) or sheet (Jews) with a hole in it, in order that they might conceive children with as little pleasure as possible.

You also write, Sex was clearly intended by nature for the transmission of life: either of children or of disease. Various strange forms may not lead to children, but will lead to disease.

It is demonstrably not true that every sexual act other than penile-vaginal intercourse leads to disease. It is also undeniable that penile-vaginal intercourse, even within the bounds of marriage and with intent to conceive, may transmit disease, and not necessarily one contracted via pre- or extramarital sex.

If humans were designed to copulate only for the purpose of bearing children, women would have cycles of estrus as other mammals do. The fact that the human female is sexually receptive all year long indicates that sex has other functions in humans besides procreation. You may certainly argue that its only other function is to bond married couples more closely to one another, but that doesn't explain why desire is not always experienced in the context of monogamous pairing.

You continue, It is true that there is a strong desire and demand for [pornography], but it is consumed in the dark and in private — people are rightly ashamed of being connected with it.

And some of us have no embarrassment about having nude art up on the walls, erotic books in the bookshelves, or even erotic videos in the entertainment centers of our living rooms, into which we invite guests. We don't feel we should be ashamed of it, regardless of what other people say. (Especially other women, be they radical feminists or religious conservatives.) If we keep it primarily to our homes, it is because we respect the law and also the boundaries of the more reserved.

Very small children may not feel shame, but by the time they reach the age of reason —- and even before -- they full well know that some parts of the body must be covered.

Again, it depends on the culture. While I defer to the anthropologists on this point, I still doubt that it's a hard-wired response in all humans. Perhaps there is a genetic basis for "modesty" (or prudery, as the case may be), but IIRC there have been cases of Western explorers stumbling across "primitive" peoples who went about naked.

You are certainly entitled to your own theological and moral beliefs, but, as Orson put it rather more bluntly, they are your beliefs, not everybody's, and until you can produce a deity that descends from the heavens and smites all those who don't live according to your tenets, you can't expect to convince everybody.

Pok, regarding your complaint about feminists who declare their opinions on penises the only valid ones:

A radical feminist would probably reply that even though you're a gay male, you're still male, and therefore you have "gender privilege," just as white people -- no matter if they're female, poor, handicapped, etc. -- are considered to have "skin color privilege" over all non-whites.

Although as a gay person you do fit into one category of "the oppressed," a woman will always trump you in a game of Victims. Theoretically, you could hide in the closet and masquerade as a straight white man (a gay version of Uncle Tom, if you will), whereas few women can disguise their sex enough to fool the world.

So the reply you'd get from Amy Keel and her friends would probably be the PC equivalent of, "Shut up and go sit in the back of the bus."

Orson:

EXCUSE ME!~That's your morality--not mine.

True enough, but it should be yoursóand I think if you studied this more closely it would be.

We are talking about a public space here (even if also owned by Harvard University), where I believe public expression is welcomed, even when offending (e.g., flag burning).

I trust public expression is also welcome here. But there are limits to both speech and expression. The Harvard display was firmly over the line.

Since when is Haaavard to be the "moral" equal of Falwell's Liberty University?

I would hope that Harvard would aim to be superior to Liberty U.

Regenleif:

AB, you write, There is no vice to enjoying sex within its proper place within marriage. Then you contradict yourself: The simple desire for anotherís body is not proper, even within marriage

Perhaps I wasnít clear. The simple desire for a wifeís body is not proper. It must be joined with Love and the openness for children.

You also make several other points:

Children or Disease is not Inevitable: You may be able to come up with an act does not transmit diseaseómy mind does not work that wayóbut there would easily be other objections to it.

A Strict Method of Reproduction would be Different: There are six billion of us. Something must be working right.

There is a Pornographic Sub-Culture: Of this there is no doubt. Pornography is big business. There are even people who flaunt their involvement in pornography. But it is a fringe thing. Outside of this small sub-culture people who use pornography keep it hidden. It is the reaction of others to this immodesty keep it hidden.

At one company I worked for, an employee who didnít keep it hidden enough was taken away in handcuffs.

Primitive Tribes are Immodest Given their primitive state, one has to wonder if it is a lack of Modesty or a lack of Cloth. All peoples, at least that I know of, cover at least part of their bodies. We may argue weather their code of Modesty is too strict or too loose. But they do have a code of Modesty. It is natural and inborn.

You are certainly entitled to your own theological and moral beliefs, but, as Orson put it rather more bluntly, they are your beliefs, not everybody's, and until you can produce a deity that descends from the heavens and smites all those who don't live according to your tenets, you can't expect to convince everybody.

Indeed, they are my beliefs and not yours. I do not expect to produce such a deity, nor do I expect to convince everybody. Indeed, if such a deity smote them, there would be no need to convince anyone. Like yourself, I am putting my beliefs into the public square. I also think that if you look more closely at the issue you would agree with me.

The Constitution relies on many "de factos," including the morality that is meant to be bolstered by other realms of society. It is a governmental document, not a complete guide to societal structure.

No law, mechanism, or "guide to societal structure" can abridge the Constitution's fundamental principles. And the Constitution makes no attempt to legislate away incivility or offense, understanding that petty regulations on such issues -- the speech codes you so strongly favor -- can only undermine individual liberty and societal freedom.

What I find truly dangerous in the current cultural climate are the implications that what ought not be done by force of the government cannot be done by individuals and private organizations (e.g., smashing the erection).

(Shakes head in disbelief.) Individuals and private organizations can't go around smashing and defacing everything they find offensive. What kind of cultural climate would that produce? Taliban-run Afghanistan comes to mind.

Why can't I claim that the sculptor destroyed the snow as it had been constituted?

You can claim that if you wish, but it's a ridiculous line of argument. Are you outraged that Michelangelo wrecked a nice block of marble to craft David? Or that Picasso despoiled perfectly good paint to create Guernica?

The same outrage would not accompany the destruction of a nine-foot snow crucifix.

Yes, it would. Christians and conservative groups would decry a blatant act of censorship. Liberals, applauding the culprits for their progressive activism, would urge Harvard to ban religious snow sculptures from its campus. Sound familiar?

Ultimately it doesn't matter that the object of Amy Keel's censorious wrath was a phallic snow sculpture. If she'd destroyed an ice crucifix, the principles would be exactly the same. This is why content-neutrality is so important.

I believe that answering the affront of the sculpture was not done in the most effect, creative, or clever way. Transforming it into something else would have been a much better way to go.

Once again, you ignore elementary distinctions between expression and action. If Amy Keel had wished to "answer the affront of the sculpture," she should have exercised her right to free speech. Destroying or transforming an offending sculpture is not protected expression: it's vandalism and censorship.

Angus,

I'm beginning to think you're arguing with somebody other than me. First of all, you're the one who introduced the idea of involving authority by suggesting that Keel ought to face "disciplinary action." I find that patently foolish.

And the Constitution makes no attempt to legislate away incivility or offense, understanding that petty regulations on such issues -- the speech codes you so strongly favor -- can only undermine individual liberty and societal freedom.
— I have not favored "strongly favored" speech codes; in fact, I believe that we ought to be able to conduct ourselves properly without them. I've favored de facto speech codes involving commonly held mores. I do believe, however, that institutions have an obligation to offer some corrective when those mores move too far afield. Harvard may very well condone snow porn, and all I've done is suggest that it ought not, if it takes a position either way. Note, as well, that I at no time called for disciplinary action against the sculptor. That you're offended by Keel's reformulation of a clump of snow suggests a preference for a type of "incivility and offense" (one, apparently, that you don't find offensive). A statement offending those with traditional values must be sacrosanct; a statement offending those who believe a snowpenis is artwork is seen as an affront to be punished.

Individuals and private organizations can't go around smashing and defacing everything they find offensive. What kind of cultural climate would that produce? Taliban-run Afghanistan comes to mind.
— Shake your head all you want, but perhaps if you ceased the motion, you'd see that you've dramatically extrapolated my argument. First, the snow is not the property of anybody (property being included in "everything"). Second, you somehow manage to get "individuals and private organizations" around to a government structure, once again.

You can claim that if you wish, but it's a ridiculous line of argument. Are you outraged that Michelangelo wrecked a nice block of marble to craft David? Or that Picasso despoiled perfectly good paint to create Guernica?
— What's ridiculous is equating a (probably somewhat drunk) college kid's snow sculpture with works of art design to have some degree of permanence and created on/with purchased materials by great artists. That, more than anything, is what offends me — and what I meant about affording all expression the same weight diminishing expression of greater import. But fine: if you desire a work of ice phallustry, go ahead and commission it, placing it in a private location.

Christians and conservative groups would decry a blatant act of censorship. Liberals, applauding the culprits for their progressive activism, would urge Harvard to ban religious snow sculptures from its campus. Sound familiar?
— But there are two significant differences here that you must be able to understand beneath all of the "neutrality." The entire scene would likely play out much differently, with Harvard actually acting on the liberals' requests (maybe next time it snows, I'll drive up to Harvard and put it to the test). The second difference is inherent between lewd objects and religious objects. Consider that it is not illegal to engage publicly in religious activities; it is illegal to engage publicly in overt sexual activities. It is illegal to walk the streets handing out hardcore porn; it is not illegal to walk the streets handing out religious tracts.

Once again, you ignore elementary distinctions between expression and action. If Amy Keel had wished to "answer the affront of the sculpture," she should have exercised her right to free speech. Destroying or transforming an offending sculpture is not protected expression: it's vandalism and censorship.
— Mind defining the difference between "expression" and "action"? Building the sculpture was an action; speaking is an action. Keel's action was a form of expression; if she had created the snow penis, I don't imagine anybody objecting to her destroying it. And it seems to me difficult to claim that a person's changing the shape of snow implies ownership. At any rate, the sculptor did not take it with him — even "privately owned" trash on the curb is considered up for grabs. If you want "content neutrality" how's this: I deliberately walk across an undisturbed quad of snow, and somebody deigns to step in my footprints, expanding them in size. Punishable? Or how would you react if somebody had added to the sculpture in like spirit, perhaps testicles? Or what if Keel had, instead, built snow walls around the sculpture, hiding it from view?

Justin writes:
I've favored de facto speech codes involving commonly held mores. I do believe, however, that institutions have an obligation to offer some corrective when those mores move too far afield. Harvard may very well condone snow porn, and all I've done is suggest that it ought not, if it takes a position either way.

Your solution is to have institutions offer some corrective when what is being expressed moves too far afield. Any corrective that is based upon a subjective, sliding scale appears to me to be a speech code. Step beyond the bounds of what a central authority defines as proper mores and receive a punishment. What frightens me is when people such as AB start being able to define what is proper taste.

And AB no matter how much I listen to you I will never agree with your perverse ramblings. Of course if you want to keep on preaching hate, be my guest.

You're the one who introduced the idea of involving authority by suggesting that Keel ought to face "disciplinary action." I find that patently foolish.

If a group of frat boys demolished a giant snow vagina sculpted by feminist students, they'd be disciplined before you could say "sensitivity training." Why, then, should Harvard turn a blind eye to Keel's behavior? Shouldn't she be held accountable for her actions?

I've favored de facto speech codes involving commonly held mores. I do believe, however, that institutions have an obligation to offer some corrective when those mores move too far afield.

Civility is a matter of respect and common courtesy. While it's certainly to be desired, it cannot be legislated, as other posters to this thread have noted. Contrary to your belief, educational institutions have no obligation whatsoever to "correct" incivil or offensive expression -- quite the opposite. Bound by the First Amendment, public universities cannot legally regulate student expression. Harvard and many other respectable private universities refuse to constrain expression as a matter of long-standing principle.

Keel's reformulation of a clump of snow....

This smacks of apologism. Keel did not "reformulate a clump of snow." She demolished a snow sculpture that took "a great deal of work to build," according to its creators.

A statement offending those with traditional values must be sacrosanct; a statement offending those who believe a snowpenis is artwork is seen as an affront to be punished.

Not so. Harvard's free speech guidelines protect all statements, regardless of content or civility. Free speech precedent also protects sculpture and other forms of artistic expression. Vandalism, by contrast, cannot be considered a protected statement -- First Amendment law and free speech precedent are quite clear on this point.

What's ridiculous is equating a (probably somewhat drunk) college kid's snow sculpture with works of art design to have some degree of permanence and created on/with purchased materials by great artists.

Snow sculpture is a recognized art form -- there's even an International Snow Sculpture Championship (look it up) -- and this sculpture has been admired, even by its detractors, for its verisimilitude. It matters not a whit whether the medium has permanence, whether the sculpture was created with purchased materials, or whether its artists can be considered "great."

The second difference is inherent between lewd objects and religious objects.

Religious art has often been a subject of controversy precisely because no such "inherent" difference exists. Adam and Eve are traditionally depicted in a state of prelapsarian nakedness; it is also common to show Jesus naked, both as a child (his genitalia exposed to make the point that he is "fully man" as well as "fully God") and as a crucified martyr. The Virgin Mary is often shown with one breast exposed (a tradition stretching back to the Renaissance) and some modern day artists have gone even further: Guy Reid's Madonna and Child, recently installed in the Anglican church of St. Matthew, Westminster, shows both Mary and Jesus completely naked. I could go on here, but there is much in religious art to problematize simplistic distinctions between "lewd" and "religious" objects.

Consider that it is not illegal to engage publicly in religious activities; it is illegal to engage publicly in overt sexual activities.

That's entirely beside the point. Nobody was having sex in the snow (brrrrr....); the students were building a phallic sculpture. It's not illegal to display erotic artwork in a public space; we've had such displays for thousands of years.

Building the sculpture was an action; speaking is an action. Keel's action was a form of expression....

Not so. Keel's was an act of censorious vandalism, spurred on by misguided feminist self-righteousness. Her actions are entirely indefensible on either aesthetic or political grounds.

And it seems to me difficult to claim that a person's changing the shape of snow implies ownership.

Ownership of the snow is not the issue here. Artists have a long tradition of creating artwork from "found objects." By definition, they don't own those objects, but that doesn't render their artistic expression any less constitutionally protected.

If you want "content neutrality" how's this: I deliberately walk across an undisturbed quad of snow, and somebody deigns to step in my footprints, expanding them in size. Punishable?

This is a silly analogy. Footprints are not a recognizable artform. Even if you intended the footprints as a work of art, the person who walked over them can justifiably claim ignorance of your artistic intent. But when Keel demolished the snow sculpture, she knew she was tearing down someone else's creative work. Hers was a premeditated and malicious act of destruction, nothing more.

Angus,

If a group of frat boys demolished a giant snow vagina sculpted by feminist students, they'd be disciplined before you could say "sensitivity training."
— And that would be wrong, in my opinion.

Bound by the First Amendment, public universities cannot legally regulate student expression. Harvard and many other respectable private universities refuse to constrain expression as a matter of long-standing principle.
— First sentence: Harvard is private; if it were public, then public standards for public property would reign. Second sentence: Go masturbate on the quad at Harvard as a political statement, or go shout out racial slurs — even Harvard does constrain expression. As a tangential issue, I consider it a major shortcoming of the modern university that it fails sufficiently to inculcate an understanding of how the world actually functions beyond its boundaries.

Keel did not "reformulate a clump of snow."
— OK. Then address my other suggestions about what she should have done.

It matters not a whit whether the medium has permanence, whether the sculpture was created with purchased materials, or whether its artists can be considered "great."
— So what does matter? Is it art because it was admired, or does it not matter whether the "artists can be considered 'great'"? Do you not consider the equation as cheapening the artists whom you mention?

Religious art has often been a subject of controversy precisely because no such "inherent" difference exists.
— I've already said that I would consider the situation to be much different were the penis implied or part of a larger context. What makes it lewd is that there is no context except the sexual organ. There is a line, and the treatment of the sculpture by those described in a post above suggests that even those who enjoyed the thing understood that it crossed the line. One does not hump and lick art.

It's not illegal to display erotic artwork in a public space; we've had such displays for thousands of years.
— First, with the comment to which this is a response, I was trying to get at the understood difference between pornography and iconography. At any rate, it is illegal to publicly display pornography.

Keel's was an act of censorious vandalism, spurred on by misguided feminist self-righteousness. Her actions are entirely indefensible on either aesthetic or political grounds.
— So you say. Once again: define the difference between "action" and "expression." Somebody above mentioned flag burning, isn't that "destruction."

Ownership of the snow is not the issue here. Artists have a long tradition of creating artwork from "found objects."
— You're playing both sides, here. How can you claim that Keel's act was vandalism if the object wasn't property? At any rate, the question isn't one of creating the artwork, but of where it is placed. As I said, garbage on the curb is public property.

Footprints are not a recognizable artform. Even if you intended the footprints as a work of art, the person who walked over them can justifiably claim ignorance of your artistic intent.
— OK, then. I design a frame in the snow around my footprints, or I put signs up around undisturbed snow that read, "This undisturbed snow is a work of art." Or, again, what if Keel had built snow walls around the sculpture? Or merely made it into something else?

Justin,

Harvard is private; if it were public, then public standards for public property would reign.

You insist on making this a debate about property rights. It's not about property rights -- it's about freedom of expression.

Go masturbate on the quad at Harvard as a political statement, or go shout out racial slurs -- even Harvard does constrain expression.

You are completely (and at this point embarrassingly) wrong here. I've pointed out to you several times now that Harvard does not constrain expression. Its clearly stated free speech guidelines "do not permit censorship of noxious ideas." A Harvard student who chooses to walk around campus shouting racial epithets cannot be disciplined based on the content of his speech. Naturally, other students are free to shout "You're a f***ing racist a**hole!" in response -- but that's what free speech is all about.

Again you confuse expression with action. Masturbation is not speech, and cannot be considered a "political statement."

Is it art because it was admired, or does it not matter whether the "artists can be considered 'great'"?

It was a sculpture with recognizable artistic merit. The perceived "greatness" of the artists is entirely irrelevant: mediocre artists have the same free speech rights as great ones.

Do you not consider the equation as cheapening the artists whom you mention?

Again, that's entirely irrelevant to the point. But since you consider Picasso a great artist, what is your opinion of his Phallus and Nude (1903)?

There is a line, and the treatment of the sculpture by those described in a post above suggests that even those who enjoyed the thing understood that it crossed the line.

As I've painstakingly pointed out to you in this and previous posts, no such "line" exists on Harvard's campus. A university committed to free speech, a university whose stated guidelines "do not permit censorship of noxious ideas," is not in the business of drawing arbitrary "lines" (i.e., speech codes) to limit expression. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Somebody above mentioned flag burning, isn't that "destruction."

See Texas v. Johnson and United States v. Eichman. Per the Supreme Court, flag burning is "symbolic speech," and is protected under the First Amendment.

At any rate, the question isn't one of creating the artwork, but of where it is placed.

You're trying to distract attention from the issues here. I quote from yesterday's Harvard Crimson:

"The sculpture's destroyers, Amy E. Keel í04 and her roommate Mary C. Cardinale '03, said they leveled the ice penis in order to spare others from being offended by it."

They didn't destroy the sculpture because of where it was placed. It wasn't blocking the door to their apartment, for example, or preventing them from getting their car out of the parking lot. They destroyed it because they found it offensive and because they decided that other people should not see it. The issue here is freedom of expression -- not property rights, ownership of snow, the location of the artwork, the greatness of the artists, or any other red herring you might dream up.

What if Keel had built snow walls around the sculpture?

That's also censorship: the goal would be "to spare others from being offended by it."

Or merely made it into something else?

More censorship. Again, her purpose would be "to spare others from being offended by it."

I myself, as a European (male)
would like to comment on this all, by saying:

i'm glad political correctness over here hasn't yet grown into the two-faced monster it has become in the United States.

g'dang, the thought alone....

Angus,

I don't mind the disagreement; I wouldn't even mind the arrogance if it weren't married to obtuseness and a loose handling of the argument. But, hey, if you're embarassed by my being wrong, in your view, then I cannot concern myself with that.

It's not about property rights -- it's about freedom of expression.
— Sheesh. I said "public standards for public property." In other words, public standards for displaying lewd material, even if it's called art. In other words: placing the thing on "public property."

I've pointed out to you several times now that Harvard does not constrain expression.
— I wrote above, "Harvard may very well condone snow porn, and all I've done is suggest that it ought not, if it takes a position either way." Are you reading my comments?

Masturbation is not speech, and cannot be considered a "political statement."
— Is giving the finger a form of "speech"? What about "mooning"? Technically, a sculpture isn't "speech" (I looked it up). Where's the line? Action inherently expresses something. At any rate, I've continued to ask you to define the difference. And who are you to declare what can and cannot be a "political statement"? If you can declare that masturbation is not a "political statement," why can't I declare the same of a snow phallus (if "political statement" is the measure)?

But since you consider Picasso a great artist, what is your opinion of his Phallus and Nude (1903)?
— Frankly, I'm not impressed by it. At any rate, I'm not sure Picasso would have posted it in the middle of a college mall.

See Texas v. Johnson and United States v. Eichman. Per the Supreme Court, flag burning is "symbolic speech," and is protected under the First Amendment.
— So why isn't destroying the phallus "symbolic speech"? They are both, by nature, "destructive."

They didn't destroy the sculpture because of where it was placed. It wasn't blocking the door to their apartment, for example, or preventing them from getting their car out of the parking lot.
— This is where you're being obtuse. Of course they destroyed it because of where it was placed. Do you think they would have jumped a fence to destroy it in somebody's backyard? They also said that people should be able to walk the campus without being accosted by the sculpture. Placement is crucial here.

That's also censorship: the goal would be "to spare others from being offended by it."
— So where's the line? If she posted guards at all entrances to the area to encourage people to walk a different way with the same goal, would that be censorship?

Do you happen to know whether Harvard allows the posting of centerfolds on its public bulletin boards?

Are you reading my comments?

Yes, I am. I'm reading them quite carefully. And you've written:

-- "What about the rights of those who [wish] to go about their day without being accosted by ... offensive ... expression"?
-- "Affording all expression the same weight ... offends me."
-- "Institutions have an obligation to offer some corrective when [commonly held] mores move too far afield."
-- "Even Harvard does constrain expression."

Here you state that insitutions have an obligation to insitute speech codes; that Harvard, despite its clearly stated free speech guidelines, constrains expression; that people have the "right" not to be offended; and that content-neutral standards for free expression personally offend you. I'll let these statements stand for themselves.

Is giving the finger a form of "speech"?

Yes. See, for example, City Bismarck ND v. Thomas Schoppert, Commonwealth of PA v. Fenton, and Nichols v. Chacon. In the latter case, Judge Walker noted that "[s]tatutes proscribing the use of abusive or obscene language or the making of obscene gestures in public places have repeatedly been struck down as unconstitutionally overbroad because they prohibit a substantial amount of constitutionally protected expression."

What about "mooning"?

In 1986 a woman protested outside the U.S. Supreme Court wearing only a cardboard placard covering the front of her body. She was arrested, charged with indecent exposure, and duly acquitted. From Duvallon v. DC:

"Courts ... have construed indecent exposure as the willful and intentional public display of one's private parts or person. When, for example, these terms were applied to males in a number of nineteenth century English cases, the Queen's Bench determined that they served as euphemisms for penis. American common law cases are in accordance with those of England. Hence, 'person' in the statute corresponds to genitalia portions of male and female anatomy; by inference then, exposure of one's bare buttocks is not interdicted."

Per this ruling, mooning (exposure of the buttocks) is a protected form of expression.

Technically, a sculpture isn't "speech" (I looked it up).

In the United States, words, paintings, sculpture, music, theatrical performances, and other types of artistic expression are protected by the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. What evidence do you have for the claim that sculpture is not protected expression?

Action inherently expresses something.

For the purposes of the law, action is physical conduct. Speech is the expression of ideas, whether embodied in words (written or spoken), music, art, or other media. The First Amendment views speech as essentially different from action, and provides it with a degree of immunity from social control that is not extended to physical conduct.

If you can declare that masturbation is not a "political statement," why can't I declare the same of a snow phallus (if "political statement" is the measure)?

Public masturbation is indecent exposure. Phallic art is not. You're blatantly ignoring the difference between an actual erect penis and the artistic representation of one. For the record, Amy Keel makes exactly the same mistake when she declares "No one should have to be subjected to an erect penis without his or her express permission or consent." The respondent quoted above adroitly and correctly replies, "Sweetie, you weren't subjected to an erect penis. You were subjected to a snow sculpture."

Why isn't destroying the phallus "symbolic speech"? They are both, by nature, "destructive."

If you wish to petition the Supreme Court for the constitutional right to destroy phallic sculpture, go right ahead. Frankly, I doubt you'll have much success.

They also said that people should be able to walk the campus without being accosted by the sculpture.

The sculpture wasn't "accosting" anyone. A static snow sculpture cannot "accost," given that it cannot speak, move, or act. If you find it offensive, just ignore it.

So where's the line?

The "line" is the First Amendment, which, much to your apparent dismay, protects many forms of offensive expression.

If she posted guards at all entrances to the area to encourage people to walk a different way with the same goal, would that be censorship?

Amy and her feminist friends were free to encourage people not to walk past the sculpture. "Encouraging" someone is exercising free speech. However, forcibly blocking the entrances would be censorship.

Do you happen to know whether Harvard allows the posting of centerfolds on its public bulletin boards?

No, I don't. Do you?

Well, this is getting old, and you're continuing with the same wriggles, so this'll be my last reply.

I'll let these statements stand for themselves.
— Apparently that is your wont, considering that you prefer to take my statements out of context. My question about reading my comments was related to a very specific statement, one that you have apparently still not read, since you now continue to hammer at the same point. I particularly like your second bullet, wherein you deign to ellipse right through the actual meaning of the sentence.

Is giving the finger a form of "speech"? Yes.
— So is all discussion of what is and what ought to be, particularly in a moral context, restricted by the terms of the law? Laws are never wrong? I ask because you seem to shift from strict legal definitions of "speech," "expression," and "action" when it suits your larger point, but to use them interchangeably when it does not. Giving the finger is an action, as is mooning. That they are legally protected actions (under the broad umbrella of expression or speech) only further undermines your continued accusation that I am confusing action and expression.

In the United States, words, paintings, sculpture, music, theatrical performances, and other types of artistic expression are protected by the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. What evidence do you have for the claim that sculpture is not protected expression?
— I said, specifically, that sculpture is not "speech," as you apparently understand by your list of what constitutes "expression." You've switched to "artistic," here, but presumably "political expression" would be included. So, again, how do you declare that Keel's action ought not be defined as political expression, given that she did not destroy an object that anybody owned. If you say the phallus was art, then I'll say that it was pornography, and the distinction is irreparably subjective. If you say that the creation of the phallus was expression, I'll say that its destruction was, as well, using the same unowned medium.

For the purposes of the law, action is physical conduct.
— OK. Since you're so fond of citing legal cases. Why hasn't Keel been arrested?

Public masturbation is indecent exposure. Phallic art is not. You're blatantly ignoring the difference between an actual erect penis and the artistic representation of one.
— We've established that certain acts, constructions, and words can be considered forms of "expression" to be protected. Middle fingers, burned flags, bare rearends, dance, miming, shouts, placards, these are all expression. So again, considering that I'm not making any points whatsoever that anybody ought to be arrested according to the law, how do you take away my right to consider masturbation as a form of expression? Given your own construction of "expression," it is merely a form of expression that is illegal — i.e., that is beyond the boundaries of a "code."

The "line" is the First Amendment, which, much to your apparent dismay, protects many forms of offensive expression.
— But, vis a vis my previous points, the First Amendment doesn't tell us which "forms of offensive expression" are permissible.

"Encouraging" someone is exercising free speech. However, forcibly blocking the entrances would be censorship.
— But in a previous post, you defined censorship based on its goal ("That's also censorship: the goal would be 'to spare others from being offended by it.'"). Presumably, a wall of snow would be "snow art," "free speech" in your estimation. However, creating that instance of "free speech" in such a way that its "statement" is to block the view of another deliberately formed chunk of snow would be censorship. Therefore, you are suggesting that what makes the snow wall cross the line from speech to censorship is that it succeeds in blocking the view. Yet, spoken words intended to bring about the same effect would not be censorship just because they succeeded (or would they?). (NB, if censorship is a "know it when I see it" kinda thing, then I'll suggest that I see the phallus as pornography.)

Now, you could say that the encouragements enable the potential viewer to make up his or her own mind, whereas the wall does not. So, then, since we're dealing in a public place, why does the creator of the phallus have a right to create an instance of snow expression that passersby will be forced to see, but the creator of the wall would have no right to create an instance of snow expression that will force people to see it rather than the penis? (Suppose there was a ladder built into the wall, enabling determined viewers to climb to the top and see the phallus?) Now, in this construction, at the very least, it ought to have been incumbent upon the phallic sculptor to place some form of warning at each entrance to the public space, if not to build a wall with holes through which a viewer would have to look deliberately.

Giving the finger is an action, as is mooning.

Justin, welcome to Legal Studies 101. There's a huge legal difference between a physical action (e.g., punching someone) and an expressive gesture (e.g., giving the finger). A punch is an intrinsically harmful physical action: it inflicts damage and physical pain; it often draws blood; it can break bones or teeth; and in extreme cases it can render a person unconscious, or even kill him. This is why the courts treat punching other people as a criminal offence. A raised middle finger, by contrast, is entirely meaningless and harmless in and of itself. Raised middle fingers have never broken bones, have never drawn blood, have never rendered anyone unconscious, and have never killed anyone. A raised middle finger functions only (and only in some countries at that) as gestural shorthand for "F*** you!" You can't prosecute someone for giving the finger without prosecuting their expression, which is unconstitutional. This is why the First Amendment protects a raised middle finger, but not a punch in the face.

If you say that the creation of the phallus was expression, I'll say that its destruction was, as well, using the same unowned medium.

Again, more Legal Studies 101. Artistic creation is protected expression under the First Amendment. Destroying someone else's artistic creation because you find it offensive is censorship. For the record, I'm amazed that you repeatedly describe censorship as a form of creative expression. If you witnessed a book-burning party, would you claim First Amendment protection for the expressive flames?

Why hasn't Keel been arrested?

I've noted this double standard in a previous post. Consider what would happen if two frat boys smashed a giant snow vagina sculpted by female students. The predictable machinery of feminist outrage would swing into action: weeping women would hold candlelit vigils around the smashed sculpture; women's studies professors would decry its "symbolic rape" and predict an impending epidemic of violence against women; we'd see the usual "Stop the Hate" stickers, "One in Four" buttons, and "Take Back the Night" marches. The culprits might escape arrest (although an arrest is not inconceivable, given other posts on this blog -- see "MSU Student Guilty of Insensitive Flyer") but they would certainly be disciplined. Faced with such outrage, how could the university do nothing? Keel has not been disciplined because (a) she is female, and (b) many feminists regard her phallus-smashing actions as laudable.

How do you take away my right to consider masturbation as a form of expression?

I don't deny your right to regard public masturbation as protected expression -- the U.S. Supreme Court does. Why don't you argue the point with Justice Rehnquist?

Given your own construction of "expression," it is merely a form of expression that is illegal -- i.e., that is beyond the boundaries of a "code."

Sorry, but again that's not my construction. I don't make the law. Ultimately, the Supreme Court differentiates between legal and illegal forms of expression; don't blame me if you have a problem with its distinctions.

But, vis a vis my previous points, the First Amendment doesn't tell us which "forms of offensive expression" are permissible.

Actually, First Amendment law is very clear on this issue. What exactly do you think our lawyers and courts have been doing since 1789?! Or are you one of those people for whom "In my [uninformed] opinion, the First Amendment should not protect blah, blah blah, blah, blah" matters more than 214 years of precedent, scholarship, and expert legal opinion?

Oy vey.

You've obviously determined not to understand what I'm saying (which is a failure, of course, partly my fault, although it's difficult when comprehension must be beaten into another). The truly hilarious part is that you seem to be under the impression that I'm siding with Keel based on her feminism. (Note: I get this laugh from your "double standard" comment. You were the one arguing from content neutrality. Personally, I'm giving Keel the same treatment as I would give the fellas, with whom I'd likely have much more ideological sympathy. Would you be joining with the ultrafeminists in calling for the boys to receive their fair share of discipline if the roles were reversed? Your description of the aftermath of a reversed event suggest that you would not.)

Goodbye, Angus.

You've obviously determined not to understand what I'm saying

I understand that in making outrage the basis for your reasoning, you've produced a series of hopelessly muddled arguments. You argue that people have a "right" not to be offended -- even though no such "right" can exist in a free society. You argue that constitutional law should regard acts of censorship as "free speech" -- even though that makes a mockery of the Bill of Rights. In making these "arguments," you deny meaningful distinctions between expression and action; you reject content-neutrality as an important free speech criterion; and ultimately you propose that your personal moral compass should trump all laws and all legal precedent. This is, above all, a remarkable display of egocentricity.

The truly hilarious part is that you seem to be under the impression that I'm siding with Keel based on her feminism.

Two women worked together to tear down the sculpture: Amy Keel, a feminist, and Mary Cardinale, a social conservative. At least for a few sculpture-shredding moments, feminism and social conservatism became happy allies. You may not approve of Keel's politics, but her actions in this instance undeniably dovetail with the censorious social agenda you endorse.

Would you be joining with the ultrafeminists in calling for the boys to receive their fair share of discipline if the roles were reversed?

Race and gender should not determine whether people are held accountable for their actions. At the very least, Keel and Cardinale should be publicly reminded that Harvard does not endorse censorship, and should have to apologize to the men whose work they ruined. If the roles were reversed, I would say exactly the same thing.

Angus, you da man!

Yes, you are the man Angus! Excellent job. Any chance you're gay and single?

Since Ms. O'Connor has linked back to this, I thought I'd offer an apology for all of the typos in the earlier posts. My comments were written at the expense of other activities and were, therefore, written quickly.

In addition, I want to state for the record that I consider Angus's final summation of my point to be entirely erroneous, even disingenuous, as I describe here. In the post to which that link will take you, I also attempted to pull together the threads of my point, which the direction of this discussion did not allow me to do.

i'm glad political correctness over here hasn't yet grown into the two-faced monster it has become in the United States.

In France, it is a crime punishable by fine and imprisonment to make fun of the tricolor, the Marseillaise or the President.

Holocaust denial is a criminal offense in France, Germany and several other EU nations.

England recently sent a Muslim priest to jail solely for the content of his speeches and sermons.

The EU Constitution promises, among other things: EU constitution does vow to protect "social justice," "full employment," "solidarity," "equal opportunity," "cultural diversity," "equality between the sexes," "sustainable development," "mutual respect between peoples," and "the eradication of poverty."

Now, run along and patronize someone else regarding the superiority of European culture. I'm afraid we're not buying.

An Invisible Adjuct: the statue of David is a public display of genitalia -- would you have the Free Speech police destroy it as well?

AB: you're a moronic wanker. And I'm guessing a pretty unhappy person.

Sandy: Bravo!! A truly intelligent commentary heaping perspective on the whole situation!

John: Do you think Sandy only takes one subect at a time? Have you BEEN to college??

-C Sgt USMC: Why would anti-penis feminists want Saddam's rapists to remain in power?? Methinks you are reaching to draw preposterous parallels as a means to soapbox your cause.

Mark H: Oh, so right. During times of war, we should not speak or think of other topics. When we wake in the morning our first thought should be of war, as it should be the last thought in our mind before we sleep. If every person in America thinks constantly about the war, the whole mess will just disappear.

Amy Keel: Amy, I'm truly sorry that you have been a victim of sexual abuse. But as you go through life, you're going to be confronted with penises from time to time, and you'll have a much easier time of it if you learn to abide by the old expression, "Live and let live". If you came on my property and destroyed my Snow Penis, I'd have your ass arrested for vandalism.

To save yourself from public ridicule and future jail time, I offer the following bit of advice:

If it offends you, don't look at it.
If it offends you, don't read it.
If it offends you, don't listen to it.
If it offends you, change the channel.

You have every right to avoid that which offends you.

You do NOT have the right to decide what others see, read, or hear.

If you truly believe you have that right, then you're even more fucked up than many people seem to think...

And, finally...Chris: Hiya, big boy! Why don't you come up and see me sometime?

I am replying to several posters:

> The problem with snow pornography is that it reduces the human person to an anatomical part, and ones that are normally hid from view.

So, snow "pornography" depicting an entire body would not be a "problem" since it doesn't "reduce the human person to an anatomical part"?

> The only reason to display these parts is to excite Lust, which is a vice, or to excite disgust, which is rude.

I disagree with this. Some people (me, frinstance) do not find depictions of individual body parts to be offensive. As such, there could be myriad reasons for displaying them and not just to "excite" (did you mean "incite"?) Lust or disgust.

> The only body part routinely emphasized in art is the head, as in a bust. That is because the face is the index of the mind. It is an attempt to catch the person as an individual. When modeling the private parts one might as well model the pancreas for all the individuality it shows.

If you think that "private parts" are not as individual as faces, then I submit that you have not seen enough "private parts". Each person's "private parts" are as different from another's as are their faces. On the "gross anatomy" level, they are all (mostly) the same, of course, but on the "fine" level, they are like snowflakes, no two alike.

(I have no idea about the pancreas - for all I know, they could also be different between individuals, too.)

Perhaps you should take an art class which uses nude models. It would afford you the opportunity to see this for yourself. Or, is such a class, by nature, pornographic?

> Modern chemistry is imperfect and the act by which children are produced will produce children. Modern drugs may greatly reduce the chance of this happening, but they can not prevent it entirely.

What about modern surgery? I have had a tubal ligation because I do not desire to have children, ever. So, for me "the act by which children are produced" does not necessarily mean "penile-vaginal sexual intercourse". Yes, yes, there is an extraordinarily small chance of pregnancy occuring anyway, but it's such a small chance as to be statistically null.

> Various strange forms may not lead to children, but will lead to disease.

"strange"? So, if children are not the result of sexual relations, disease is the automatic alternative?

> The hard-wiring is there, although it may take a few years to manifest itself. Very small children may not feel shame, but by the time they reach the age of reasonóand even before--they full well know that some parts of the body must be covered.

"Must be covered"? Only because society tells them so. Victorians thought that a woman's ankles "must be covered", but that is not so in today's society. So, when did this alleged "hard-wiring" change?

> The second difference is inherent between lewd objects and religious objects.

Ah, methinks you are defining "religious objects" as "Christian art". Angus seems to agree with you in that he posted several (really good) examples of Christian art which depict variations in what has been considered "pornographic" over the ages.

I also suggest that what some religions would consider to be "religious art" or "religious objects" vastly differs from Modern Christianity's opinions on the matter. Kama Sutra, anyone?

> What makes it lewd is that there is no context except the sexual organ

Laying aside the already-stated fact that a *depiction* of something is not the thing itself, I object to the concept that a depiction of an erect penis is automatically sexual. Penises can be either flaccid or erect regardless of level of sexual desire (watch a sleeping man's penis), so an erect penis is not, by nature, necessarily "sexual". (Granted that it *can* be.)

> Masturbation is not speech, and cannot be considered a "political statement."

Please see:
http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
http://www.babeland.com/salon/mthon_frame.html
for opposing viewpoints.

> that's not my construction. I don't make the law. Ultimately, the Supreme Court differentiates between legal and illegal forms of expression; don't blame me if you have a problem with its distinctions.

I have a problem with the "I don't make the law" argument. That can be used to tacitly justify any unjust law, no matter what side of any debate you're on.

> If it offends you, don't look at it.
If it offends you, don't read it.
If it offends you, don't listen to it.
If it offends you, change the channel.

Excellent advice!

2 quatloos, plus change.