Congressman Appoints Himself Censor, Removes Painting Critical Of Cops From Congressional Halls
from the I-HEAR-YOU-LOUD-AND-CLEAR,-CERTAIN-CONSTITUENTS dept
I guess it's up to one Congressman to decide what is or isn't (acceptable) art.
A Republican congressman took matters into his own hands Friday and personally removed a painting depicting police officers as pigs that a colleague had allowed to be displayed at the U.S. Capitol complex.
“I was angry,” Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., told FoxNews.com. “I’ve seen the press [reporting] on this for about a week or so. … I’m in the Marine Corps. If you want it done, just call us.”
Hunter said he walked over to the artwork Friday morning with a few colleagues and unscrewed it. He then delivered it to the office of Rep. Lacy Clay, D-Mo., the congressman whose office had allowed the piece to be displayed. The painting, hanging since June, was done by a high school student who had won Clay’s annual Congressional Art competition.
Can't get legislators off their asses to pass a budget in a timely manner or, I don't know, step up to do anything about the DOJ's Rule 41 changes, but you can count on them to apply long-dormant self-motivation to personal agendas.
Rep. Hunter, offended on behalf of an entire nation unions offended on behalf of their members, saw to it that painting, which the police unions bitched at length about, was removed from the public eye. Not that there was any outrage shown by a majority of constituents, who most likely first heard about this painting after it was removed. Here's the most offending part of the painting, as captured by the Independent Journal Review.
Coming to the defense of powerful, armed men and women who possess the power to stop and/or detain people for violating imaginary laws is the Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs. In the demand letter posted to its website, the ALADS refers to the painting as a "piece of hate," before going on and on and on about how the nation owes law enforcement its undying support.
Everyone should be alarmed when those whose job it is to fight crime on a daily basis are being depicted as pigs. Why do otherwise reasoned individuals-despite evidence before them to the contrary-become reflexively critical of police? How can a member of Congress jump to the twisted conclusion that it is okay to hang a painting that adds to the divide in our country and attacks law enforcement? Public safety requires a strong two-way partnership. At a time of our country facing rising crime and a shortage of those willing to work the streets as police officers and deputy sheriffs, we need to make it clear that depictions of law enforcement officers as pigs in our Nation's Capital are not acceptable. The dedicated men and women who put on a uniform daily, who serve to protect our communities, deserve all the support the community can possibly provide.
I assume "everyone" is just supposed to remain in their current state of alarm, since police being depicted as pigs went mainstream nearly a half-century ago. The implication of the rest of the paragraph is that anything less than full-fledged support of the law enforcement community divides nations and causes staffing shortages. And presumably ALADS believes any criticism of police is "reflexive," and not at all based on actual law enforcement actions and activities.
The same goes for the other law enforcement unions whose feelings were hurt by a high school student's artwork -- one that was informed by the aftershocks of the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO.
In an earlier statement calling on House Speaker Paul Ryan to remove it, the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the Sergeants Benevolent Association of New York, and the San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose Police Officers Associations said: “This false narrative portrays law enforcement professionals as posing a danger to the very communities we serve. That is untrue and this ‘art’ reinforces this false narrative and is disrespectful on so many levels.”
That's an interesting take -- one that suggests law enforcement officers pose no danger to the people they serve.
So, based on a new set of false narratives, one periodically-attentive Congressional rep has appointed himself censor... not for the good of the public at large, but for the good a certain subset of the public -- and subset of public servants -- who just couldn't accept the idea that some people don't view them as heroes.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: art, censorship, congress, duncan hunter, lacy clay, police
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Head, meet desk
Why do otherwise reasoned individuals-despite evidence before them to the contrary-become reflexively critical of police?
Pretty sure it's the 'evidence before them' that causes people to be 'reflexively critical of the police', in particular the police unions which are 'reflexively defensive of police', no matter what they do, and making it clear that they prioritize their own over the public.
How can a member of Congress jump to the twisted conclusion that it is okay to hang a painting that adds to the divide in our country and attacks law enforcement?
Likewise, if he wants to talk about the 'divide' between the police and the public he needs only look into a mirror, and his beloved boys and girls in blue who decided to treat the public as the enemy and act accordingly. Or the legal system which bends over backwards to give them 'rights' that members of the public could only dream of.
Public safety requires a strong two-way partnership.
In which case maybe tell the police to stop treating the public as the enemy and stop defending the absolute worst among you. Just a suggestion. If the public doesn't feel like it can trust the police a 'partnership' isn't going to happen.
At a time of our country facing rising crime...
The FBI would beg to differ, but hey, what do they know right?
... we need to make it clear that depictions of law enforcement officers as pigs in our Nation's Capital are not acceptable.
Because nothing supports a 'strong, two-way partnership' like saying one side isn't allowed to be criticized.
The dedicated men and women who put on a uniform daily, who serve to protect our communities, deserve all the support the community can possibly provide.
They get as much support as they earn. If that's not 'enough' then it's on them to demonstrate that they deserve more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Head, meet desk
The FBI's decreasing crime stats refer to old outdated notions of crime.
Rep. Duncan Hunter is referring to the modern concept of crime. That is, criticizing the police state or any of its apparatus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Head, meet desk
However, I definitely do blame internal investigators, high ranking officers, prosecutors and judges for not sanctioning misconduct properly. That would be their job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Head, meet desk
And if you look at it this way they failed hard.
PS: Yes internal and higherups share the blame as they should never have capitulated befor the union, as do some politicians that give them the tools.
What I always find funny is that internal investigations are always cunducted very friendly to the accused. If normal people would be treated this way by cops and court...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Head, meet desk
Not at all. A union is a private body whose job is to protect and advocate for their members, not for non-members.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Head, meet desk
Actually, I wouldn't really blame the unions for defending cops, even bad ones.
You should, because in defending the bad ones they screw over the (mythical) good ones. If police(including the unions) were willing to hold their own accountable rather than defending them no matter what then the public would be much more able to trust them, in general and specifically to deal with their own 'rotten apples'.
If you assume that the union's 'job' is to do the best for the police it represents, including image and relationship with the public, then protecting the worst of the lot is actually counter-productive to that job as it undermines public trust and the reputation and image of the police as a whole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Head, meet desk
They can defend the bad cops legally without a PR offensive on their behalf. Just refuse to give statements, provide lawyers that provide the cop a vigorous defense and they've done their job just fine. I don't think anyone would complain about that, unions are there to defend their members. And they could, and probably should, do this in all cases.
The problem is the PR offensive that the unions go on, attacking anyone, everyone and everything in defense of the bad cops. They do far, far more damage to the police than any of the bad cops in the process. People understand there's going to be bad actors that slip through the hiring process in any organization, but they don't expect the union to go out there claiming reality isn't reality in defense of the bad cops. That just tells people the union does not have a problem with bad cops, not that they defend all their members. And so, people stop trusting any cops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Head, meet desk
Looking at this purely analytically, not regarding whether it's a police union or some other type of body...
I'd think that that sort of tactic would destroy the paying members confidence in their organisation that they are paying to protect and advocate for them. Where for what their management perceive to be good members they go all out, launch PR campaigns etc. But for what they perceive as bad - but still paying the same membership fee - members, they don't do all that...wouldn't that destroy your faith in them as an organisation?
If I was in such a union who undertook those tactics, I'd be leaving it and finding a different one who treated all their members the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Typical baby boomer pass the blame response...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1) Police have guns. Republicans instinctively protect *anything* to do with guns.
(you could stop right there, but...)
2) Police represent law and order. The incoming president says he's the L&O president, so they want to stay on his good side, by any means necessary - to include cowering. Cops have pretty big unions, too ... and unions of (preferably uniformed) gun-wielding people are attractive parts of the Republican constituency and must be pandered to.
(you could stop right here too, but...)
3) Republicans have nothing better to do that 'work' on wedge issues and/or naming post offices since over the past decade or more in Washington they've proven an inability to govern collaboratively, generate new ideas, or govern generally.
(okay, done now.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(you could stop right there, but...)
2) Police represent law and order. The incoming president says he's the L&O president, so they want to stay on his good side, by any means necessary - to include cowering. Cops have pretty big unions, too ... and unions of (preferably uniformed) gun-wielding people are attractive parts of the Republican constituency and must be pandered to. I thought Democrats liked the Unions, why all the hate?
(you could stop right here too, but...)
3) Democrats have nothing better to do than 'work' on wedge issues and/or naming streets after SJW's since over the past decade or more in Washington they've proven an inability to govern collaboratively, generate new ideas, or govern generally.
(okay, done now.)
Despite the fact that your post is pure insulting flamebait I am certain the TD community will flag it fast...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
2.) Police unions represent only the interests of the police, and as such, they often do whatever it takes to make the police look good no matter what. They will do anything to paint anyone killed or harmed by police as criminals deserving of that violence. They will defend corrupt and violent officers until and unless definitive proof of guilt arises – and even then, the unions will do anything to keep that officer from facing stiff consequences. I would respect the police unions more if they tried harder to improve policing and backed off of trying to paint all police officers as lily-white angels from Heaven.
3.) Congressional Republicans spent the past six years blocking everything they could from the Obama administration, including the nomination of a new Supreme Court justice. Republicans in North Carolina just tried to revoke as much power from incoming governor Roy Cooper because he is a Democrat. If you want to insult Democrats over obstinance and partisanship in government, you might want to look at how bipartisan Republicans have been since the 2008 election of President Barack Obama.
And as for the whole "SJWs and wedge issues" thing: Do you believe we need not protect the civil rights of transgender people? Do you believe we have no need to address the continued discrimination of racial, gender, and sexual minorities? People can care about more than one thing at a time. And while I will admit that liberals have focused more on "social issues" than economic ones as of late, addressing the former can help address the latter as well. (I will also admit that Democrats do need to do a better job of addressing economic issues of differing demographics. White people and Black people do not have the same "economic anxieties", after all.)
So, does this satisfy your need for a comment that is not flamebait?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
On 2.)... so... A Union doing its job... shocker there! When YOU and the rest of you "not our fault for our votes/representatives" citizens finally realize that "Every Nation gets the Government it deserves" come back and talk at me.
On 3.) Because no Democrat has ever done the same? Get your head out of the sand, you are clearly okay with democrats doing this but not republicans? Hypocrisy is a nasty thing friend. Stop that. Government was setup so that these things can happen for a reason. I like it when both parties are fighting so much that things cannot get done. Because when they do agree with each other, it is usually for the WORSE not the better.
On the SJW thing. It's not about protecting rights, it is about discriminating against people that think differently under the "guise of equality". You cannot bring about equality by disparaging any side. Discrimination will never go away because SJW keep creating it as part of their solution to destroy it. It's called a catch-22, look it up, there is even a wiki page on it!
"So, does this satisfy your need for a comment that is not flamebait?" No, the comment was clearly flamebait... I am just making a point that there are certain types of bigotry that is more okay here than others, in regards to the TD community.
If you want equality great, I do as well... but it must be approached from the lens of Liberty. Not more inequality by marginalizing others to elevate the down trodden.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
(2.) A union can do its job without being dishonest to the point of delusion. If police unions would fight to push bad cops out of policing rather than fight to keep bad cops employed no matter what, I would have more respect for those unions. But they do not, so I do not.
(3a.) I am fine with obstruction based on principles. If a politican wants to obstruct a law because they believe the law will harm more people than it helps, I care not what party they are in. But if a politican wants to obstruct based only on the party they are in, I will call it out regardless of my political leanings. Partisan obstruction based on partisanship alone is bullshit, regardless of who does it.
(3b.) "[I]t is about discriminating against people that think differently under the 'guise of equality'. You cannot bring about equality by disparaging any side." Yes, and? Freedom and rights are two sides of the same coin - you cannot have pure freedom without infringing on another person's rights. We pass laws to protect the rights of others in exchange for a limit on specific freedoms; same-sex marriage, for example, is now a protected right that limits the freedom of homophobes to infringe upon that right. If the side whose freedom is limited feels "disparaged", they can either ask the government to address that grievance or deal with it like a mature adult.
(3c.) "Discrimination will never go away because SJW keep creating it as part of their solution to destroy it." No, what you are witnessing is something made possible by the Internet: the voices of those once silenced by legal and societal discrimination speaking out against it. I will admit that there are cases of "discrimination" that are overblown. But we cannot dismiss all discrimination because of the "SJW" boogeyman and baseless, hyperbolic fearmongering. Nor can we simply ask the marginalized to "deal with it" so as to protect the feelings of those who have better economic, political, and social standing.
(3d.) "If you want equality great, I do as well... but it must be approached from the lens of Liberty. Not more inequality by marginalizing others to elevate the down trodden." And whose liberty must we respect here - those who have the power, or those who do not? Whose liberty must be protected - those who can defend it, or those who cannot? What rights should the "downtrodden" be forced to give up so those above them will feel "safe" and "happy"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1) The gun ownership culture is very entrenched in the US(for obvious historical reasons).
2) The police union does what most US unions do because, well, the "everything's bigger in Texas" doesn't just belong to Texas. Look up American Exceptionalism. This is also why the US got Donald Trump elected into office.
3) Problem is many Americans never got over the end of racial segregation, much less such "novel ideas" like same-sex attraction or transgender persons. The fact that some of these concepts clash with their religious, moral and cultural views also doesn't help.
What we're left with is a bunch of groups of angry people fighting one another, distracted to Wall Street laughing all the way to the bank, rubbing their grubby hands together.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
but totally cool with shooting a dude that looks like a dog?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's okay. The general population is just a bunch of dogs. The decent ones all joined the force.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Constitution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Constitution
Doesn't count. He had his fingers crossed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
well, day-am...
Techdirtia ? you on that ? ? ?
tiresome to refute the paramilitary pigs who squeal when even a sidelong glance goes their way...
newsflash to the capo dei capi: you are on the wrong side of logic, the wrong side of morality, and the wrong side of his story; that is why you have a difficult time recruiting sociopaths...
hardly news to bitch das piggies are 'protecting and serving' the interests of the 1%, not the 99%; but it has become plainer now the velvet glove has come off the iron fist of Empire...
the abuse has escalated such that you can't even count on your white privilege to protect you from police riots... when even pwecious white slaves of Empire are getting jacked up, *now* police abuse is a thing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would the government be ok with a painting in the same building that showed a group of people as their stereotype of robbing gas stations?
Everyday we hear about different groups demanding and getting the removal of flags, paintings, monuments, etc...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
and the government HATES competition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Every time they bring up the # cops killed in the US
Gotta do a barrel roll against unarmed children in swimsuits, of course.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io1UADruF2k
"963 people killed by police in 2016"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings-2016/
"991 people killed by police in 2015"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings/
"73 LEOs killed by gunfire, stabbed or hit by a vehicle in 2016"
https://www.odmp.org/search/year?year=2016
"49 LEOs killed by gunfire, stabbed or hit by a vehicle in 2016"
https://www.odmp.org/search/year?year=2015
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Every time they bring up the # cops killed in the US
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Every time they bring up the # cops killed in the US
Frankly, if I were on a jury for a murder trial for someone who shot an LEO "serving" a "no-knock warrant" I would vote not-guilty by self-defence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good!
Things hung in government buildings tend to make people believe that the government supports these things.
It is no more appropriate to have police depicted as pigs as it would to have African Americans depicted as monkeys... or any other slur, racial or otherwise.
Both are freedom of expression, but neither are appropriate in a government building.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Good!
Congress will never lack these things, ever. Regardless of it being posted in a painting or it proceeding forth from someones twitter account.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good!
Depicting police as pigs is the result of police behavior.
The monkey depiction is not the result of any action of African Americans.
If the mythical "good cops" are so offended by this, then they should work to police their own ranks before they police everyone else. The "good cops" are represented to the public by the worst actions of the bad cops.
People want to be protected from crime. Police were once respected. Now the public fears the police. What changed? It can't be the criminals who changed the public perception. Criminal activity would reinforce the appeal of having police around. So whose actions made the public distrust the police?
This artwork is a reasonable social commentary. Like all commentary that points out ugly truths that offend the powerful and well connected, removing it from view won't make the underlying public resentment go away. Removing it in fact makes the police and those who removed it look worse, not better. Why aren't they working to change the underlying causes that led to the creation of such artwork?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lol no. You are doing your goddamn job, being paid for it and you knew about the risks when you took it. Let's talk about how the nation owes doctors? Or engineers for not letting things collapse? Or goddamn waste collection employees for not letting your yard become a stinky pile of garbage?
I hate when some morons that are merely doing their job (!!!) keep whining about their oh-so-high-importance. Every single profession is important. If you want to glorify one at least pick teachers/professors. You'd be a dumb donkey if it wasn't for them and we'd still be in the Middle Ages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dear confresss critters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why the flame piece? You should stick to tech related articles and leave this flaming to Salon or some other trash sites that doesn't offer anything other than emotional phishing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1st Amendment? You serious bro?
This whole kerfuffle is nothing more than a family arguing over what gets stuck to the front of the family refrigerator.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As far as "reality" goes, are you ok dealing with other people suggesting something different? By telling me to go read something else are you wanting to create a safe space for yourself here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
See we can be petty too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps true, but what was Clays agenda? Does every winner get displayed at the Capitol or did he just pick this one?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
not a t ypo?
Problem is, it's been "dying support". Which is what's being criticized.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oath of Office?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not all cops are PIGS. I do think the biggest problem is the UNIONS!!! It's because of police unions, bad cops are kept protected and it makes everyone else look bad. The same holds true with Teacher's. There are BAD teacher's which are also protected by the Unions. Are all teacher's bad? No!!!!
Unions were a good thing early on but like anything, over time they grow larger and larger and more corrupted, just like Government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why not, as members of the government should be very aware of what is going on in society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
besides, if the 1-10% of 'good' piggies WOULD DO THEIR FUCKING JOBS and root out the 90-99% bad piggies, then we wouldn't have these issues, would we ? ? ?
yeah, that is going to happen...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Safe topics?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Safe topics?
:P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Agree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the absurd and tasteless art.
You would think that in the People's Capital
only inspiring works of art would do.
What would Mr Cushing's opinion be of a piece
of art promoting slavery?
Surely, outrage would emanate from his mouth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
in your union hall??
How about a "painting" of anti-unionists
suppressing a strike? Surely you would object placement to it's anywhere on union property.
They do plan (your friends in CONgress) to
rehang this piece of crap back on the wall.
Now, the both of you can clap your hands in
harmony.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I should have not bother with a rebuttal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We have to get rid of Unions (all of them) in order to stop their blind, knee-jerk defense of their members. I've been in, and worked with, unions before and they do jack shit for the rank and file, while the scum are protected from the results and consequences of their actions.
Thanks for putting this forward, not many on the left believe in workplace reform.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obvious action
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Painting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Painting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]