Should Free-Speech Absolutists Defend Vandalism of Precious Artwork?
"Committing vandalism by soup to send a message about climate change may be 'expressive,' but attempting to destroy someone else's work of art crosses moral and legal boundaries."

A couple of climate activists caused global outrage by throwing soup at Vincent van Gogh's painting Sunflowers. Should free-speech absolutists join in?
While other forms of peaceful protest are defensible, there is a compelling reason to draw the line at vandalism.
"Lots of conduct 'sends a message' but is nevertheless both immoral and illegal, like killing a political opponent, hijacking a plane, or torching a place of worship," says Will Creeley, legal director at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. "Likewise, committing vandalism by soup to send a message about climate change may be 'expressive,' but attempting to destroy someone else's work of art crosses moral and legal boundaries."
The soup-throwers are affiliated with Just Stop Oil, a U.K.–based group that has been partial to such destructive tactics in recent months, ostensibly to raise awareness of the environmental impact of oil and gas production. In July, members of the organization glued themselves to a 500-year-old reproduction of Leonardo da Vinci's The Last Supper.
Not only is such conduct unprotected in the United Kingdom, where speech laws are much less permissive than in the United States, but it would also leave activists open to vandalism and property destruction charges if they pulled the same stunt on U.S. soil.
Activists with @JustStop_Oil have thrown tomato soup on Van Gogh's Sunflowers at the national Gallery and glued themselves to the wall. pic.twitter.com/M8YP1LPTOU
— Damien Gayle (@damiengayle) October 14, 2022
The protest was probably ineffective on its own terms too. Throwing a can of tomato soup at a precious work of art has little to do with fighting fossil fuels.
After the soup incident, according to The Guardian, the activists were arrested and charged with criminal damage and aggravated trespass. Officials from the National Gallery in London, where the painting is housed, say the picture was protected by a pane of glass and was not harmed, though the frame suffered minor damage.
The protest attracted harsh criticism even from those normally supportive of environmentalism. As one witness told The Guardian, "They may be trying to get people to think about the issues but all they end up doing is getting people really annoyed and angry."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"Should Free-Speech Absolutists Defend Vandalism of Precious Artwork?"
Really?
That this question is asked is absurd.
on a libertarian site...
What site are you talking about?
Just a fantasy.
I am making 80 US dollars per hr. to complete some internet services from home. I did not ever think it would even be achievable , however my confidant mate got $13k only in four weeks, easily doing this best assignment and also she convinced me to avail.
For more detail visit this site… http://www.Profit97.com
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35400 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a (ad-11) lot of greenbacks online from $28000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs
Just open the link——————–>>> https://smart.online100.workers.dev/
I'd like to know too.
Slow news day.
I think it's a direct reply to the activist's own statements, which claimed that this was a type of free expression. The author should have stated that in the introduction though.
It's not even that.
She asks a question in the sub, makes an assertion that there is a 'compelling reason' to agree, utterly fails to lay out that reason, and the whole article is basically just restating the events.
That's like asking if honor killings are a good libertarian idea because the guy killing his daughter claims to do it for freedom. A person's claims don't outweigh the act unless one truly believes that words can be literal violence.
I am making 80 US dollars per hr. to complete some internet services from home. I did not ever think it would even be achievable , however my confidant hax mate got $13k only in four weeks, easily doing this best assignment and also she convinced me to avail.
For more detail visit this site… https://googlejob26.blogspot.com
It's impressively vacuous.
Yeah, I don't get it. I agree with the conclusions, but the whole tone is sort of confusing. Like this line:
Not only is such conduct unprotected in the United Kingdom, where speech laws are much less permissive than in the United States, but it would also leave activists open to vandalism and property destruction charges if they pulled the same stunt on U.S. soil.
Yeah, no shit. I don't even get where this article is coming from. Is this a debate people are having?
No. It is not. Nobody that’s not a complete sociopathic narcissist thinks this psychos are in the right.
Libertarian response is along the lines of the artwork is private property, very precious private property at that, and irreplaceable. Your right to free speech does not allow you to destroy my private property. There's literally nothing more to it.
Too short for an article, I guess.
But what if they were Black Lives Matters protestors? Huh? Then what?
Check. Mate.
Like I implied below, with regards to laws protecting farmers from trespassers taping on their land, Reason seems uncomfortable with defend private property when the violaters declare themselves protestors.
There isn't even a conclusion. She just says that some people think the protest only makes others mad and . . . that's it.
I couldn't believe the headline. Supposedly there's no such thing as a stupid question, but yeah, that was one obscenely stupid question.
If these idiots had actually destroyed that painting, the value lost would be greater than that of the damage to the capitol building caused by the tresspassers on 1/6. Yet people spent over a year in jail waiting for trial on misdemeanor counts. The people that attempted to destroy this priceless artifact are probably already out of jail, planning their next multi-million dollar vandalism attempt.
Betteridge’s law of headlines
How is this even a debatable point (taken as a given the protestor does not own the art in question)?
Absolutely. The unasked question is Should free speech protection cover chopping the protesters hands off when they glue themselves to the wall?
Read this story over the weekend; the only conclusion I can arrive it is that climate activists are every bit as much of an asshole as I suspected.
Ditto for pretty much every kind of "activist."
My favorite remains the guy who glued his hand to a Starbucks counter to protest the upcharge on soy milk.
Holy shit that guy was an actual semi-famous guy.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/11/business-food/james-cromwell-starbucks-protest/index.html
The incident, which happened Tuesday, was a protest coordinated with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Cromwell is a longtime supporter of the group and serves as an “Honorary Director.” He’s seen on video posted by the organization asking Starbucks to “stop charging more” for vegan milk.
Starbucks charges roughly 70 cents extra for a dairy alternative, which includes soy, coconut, almond and oat milks, depending on the US city. The chain recently dropped the surcharge at its United Kingdom stores.
“My friends at PETA and I are calling on Starbucks to stop punishing kind and environmentally conscious customers for choosing plant milks,” Cromwell said in a press release from PETA. “We all have a stake in the life-and-death matter of the climate catastrophe, and Starbucks should do its part by ending its vegan upcharge.”
------------
I wonder how much money this guy has sitting in his bank account that isn't helping to reduce the cost of plant-based milks?
That'll do pig. That'll do.
One might at least hope that PETA makes sure that the glue they use is horse-free
Famous, and stupid, in that the supply chain and production impacts on soy products vs local dairy seem to escape him.
I want to show my support for the Vandals Gogh by not merely leaving them glued to the wall of the gallery, but by nailing their hands to the walls there. Free speech!
And dunking them in a big jar of urine. 🙂
You know who else vandalized artwork?
Hunter Biden.
Nobody except attorneys would consider vandalism to express a political opinion "speech". Just as nobody but an attorney would consider sexual assault to express a political opinion or throwing acid in the face of a political rival to express disagreement with her position 'speech'. The premise is asinine.
I believe the saying is that any time an article ends in a question mark, the answer to the question is "No."
Should medical doctors harvest organs from healthy unwilling patients? Discuss.
It appears to be an idiotic attempt at a gotcha from someone who is against free speech absolutism without understanding free speech absolutism.
Should Free-Speech Absolutists Defend Vandalism of Precious Artwork?
"Committing vandalism by soup to send a message about climate change may be 'expressive,' but attempting to destroy someone else's work of art crosses moral and legal boundaries."
*looks at calendar*
No, not April fools...
Rejoinder: Does the precious art work belong to the vandal?
Hey man, do what you want man, and the collective will support it.
So, I'm responding to you on this since I think you're one of the people I've chit-chatted the most about this sort of thing here.
What is the background of thinking that leads to this question? We have the left/right libertarian debate, and I often say I'm unclear on what the distinction is but I have a vague notion. I feel like the scare-quotes are "expressive" there are really indicative of who this article is being written for.
What is the belief there though? Is it more a property-less anarchy? I can't figure this one out.
What is the background of thinking that leads to this question?
This is an easy one.
Sympathy-- or a general sympathetic sense, with the cause or ideals.
It's like the article this weekend where the awful outcomes of Identitarian policies are described by the writer as "well meaning" tacked somewhere onto the end of the hand-wringing.
As I pointed out in that article, one could realistically describe the intentions of people wanting an abortion ban (aka, the end of in-utero child-killing) as well-meaning. The need to add descriptive judgments in your article is a sign that the writer is fundamentally sympathetic (or not, depending on that verbiage).
there are really indicative of who this article is being written for.
What is the belief there though? Is it more a property-less anarchy?
Also known as "libertarian Marxism". Something that's been discussed here over the last few years. It's the 'Emma Goldman' brand of utopian Marxism that truly believed the state would fade away once the revolution was complete. Everyone would be free from state strictures and live in voluntary collectives based upon mutual aid. There would be no private property because... to have private property would suggest that it had been stolen, thus representing a violation of the NAP, etc.
Do you have any pointers to actual think pieces about this Libertarian Marxism. Sounds more traditionally anarchic and loses the property-rights, Enlightenment, aspects of libertarianism.
I ran across this more than a decade ago, where I came across the self-described term of 'libertarian' in relation to Marxist belief systems. I started exploring it and what I came away with was a sense that in a Utopian outcome of Marxism, I could see how people could describe it as "libertarian".
It's not unlike 'anarchism'. Libertarianism is... in many ways "on its way" to anarchism. Not all libertarians are anarchists, but in many ways, they're somewhere down the road of Anarchism.
At its root, there is a 'right anarchism' and 'left anarchism'. Left anarchism doesn't believe in private property, right anarchism does, to name one major difference. And again, left anarchism rejects private property because of the belief that to have private property, you would have appropriated it or stolen it from the collective... or 'humanity' at the most basic level. If one doesn't believe something is 'owned' then there's no mechanism to 'take ownership' of it that can't be described as theft.
Let me see what I can find.
The people who think the collective owning everything means there is no private property are known as 'idiots'.
Wikipedia actually does a pretty good job on the broad strokes here:
"The first stage would be the conquest of political power, thanks to which the instruments of production, means of transport and credit system, would ‘by degrees’, be centralised in the hands of the State. Only after a long evolution, at a time when class antagonisms have disappeared and State power has lost its political nature, only then would all production be centered in the hands of ‘associated individuals’ instead of in the hands of the State."
Something with which to assuage the useful idiots while they are being used for the takeover of the state, which would remain indefinitely. Just how dumb would a person have to be to believe such nonsense?
Just how dumb would a person have to be to believe such nonsense?
You'd have to be an intellectual.
Or at least call yourself one.
Here's a good passage which shows how the ideals of mutual aid are... inherently 'libertarian'.
Thank you.
So, over several millennia, we all evolve into Vulcans.
Sure thing.
The overemotional screeching children will be the ones to show us the way.
Libertarian marxism = just gas the jews and we won't need all these rules, because they only exist to protect us from teh ebil jooz.
Do you have any pointers to actual think pieces about this Libertarian Marxism. Sounds more traditionally anarchic and loses the property-rights, Enlightenment, aspects of libertarianism.
Also, don't take anything I say or link to as "definitive" because the entire debate around Marxism, mutual aid, Marxists/Anarchism/Libertarianism is absolutely positively fraught with "that's not real ____________" which is why utopian philosophies always crumble from internal squabbling.
Goldman ultimately rejected Leninism, Marx went to a conference and (supposedly said) everyone there was a Marxist except me, Trotskyists hated the Stalinists, Orwell (a socialist) hated the socialists and the Marxists.
You know you're a real libertarian if you spend most of your time accusing every libertarian around you of not being real libertarians.
The true heart of Libertarianism is not, and has never been freedom. It is instead Wonkiness that defines our creed.
"...because the entire debate around Marxism, mutual aid, Marxists/Anarchism/Libertarianism is absolutely positively fraught with “that’s not real ____________”
So best reserved for thoughts about the afterlife and who will get into "The Good Place"
It would most likely be called anarcho-syndicalism. The Republicans in the Spanish Civil War were that and that is what people outside the US think of when they hear the term libertarian
Yes, lots of intersections here, with some differing splits on how much individualism is recognized as legitimate. I would interpret the syndicalists as not being particularly individualistic.
There's nothing "Enlightenment" about Nihilism.
And here's a very interesting discussion about the tension within libertarians/anarchists about the extent to which private property is legitimate.
I won't clip any of it because it's a long discussion but gets to interesting points fairly quickly, so a skimming of it will probably provide some insight into the tensions between certain libertarian philosophers in regards to property, the presumptions of how it was acquired etc.
I'm interested in that. I'm somewhat more interested in intellectual property stuff these days, as I think I can be convinced against much of that. I don't think I can be convinced against private property much at this point.
I think one of the biggest understated distinctions is how much wiggle room is given for a practical element. Like, even with some open-and-shut argument against private property from a libertarian standpoint (and I'll read the article before I comment, but I have a sense where some distinction will come from), I think there's a practical element of private property that has borne out so hard over such a long period of time as to minimize any government enforced property dissolution.
I think this is where my conservatism really becomes obvious. I am very, very, very anti-revolutionary.
It's a discussion which has (again) seeped upward into the mainstream from academic Marxists in the mainstream guise of "you're living on indigenous stolen land, so everything you have is tainted or not legitimate".
"Hey man, these vandals tried to burn down my house!"
"Which sits on land taken from Indigenous tribes!"
And so far, the linked article is very much an example of the perfect being the enemy of the good. And it's already calling for radical seizure of property for communal purposes.
I am always annoyed by the laziness of people who claim that the idea of property rights is some sort of new thing, or that it is somehow a bolted-on instrument created by landlords and agrarian kings.
All property rights are is a mechanism for mediating a simple fact: Resources are exclusive. Two people cannot use a thing at one time. Therefore you need a mechanism for defining who has the right to use that thing at any one time.
Even the radical marxists are proposing a property right- just an ahistorical and deceptive one. It always comes down to some "communal" or "expert driven" decision, but will always result in someone being granted use of a thing for a time, while others are denied that same right.
"Should First Amendment Absolutists support religious fanatics murdering the Infidel?"
In more local news, someone claiming the mantle of the local Seventh-Day Adventist Church put copies, not just of a pamphlet, but of a giant paperback 474-page tome The Great Controversy, on the windshields of many if not all vehicles in the parking lot of the store where I work.
Just from a glance, it appears to be an Anti-Catholic/Anti-Vatican text from the 1880s by E.G. White. (Ellen?)
What brought this on, I don't know, but someone's God and "sincerely-held religious belief" doesn't respect private property rights.
Should Emma Camp headline this incident by asking: "Should Free Speech Absolutists Support Trashing Retail Parking Lots and Greenlighting Bums, Muggers, and Carjackers?"
Then the sub-text can say: "Because that is exactly what they're doing!
Property rights. Was the document glued to the vehicle, or did the vehicle owners just toss it away? Minor inconveniences like pamphlets, advertising one may not like, are part of a pluralistic society that embraces free expression. You seem to miss this, each time.
The people passing out the tomes were on private property doing so without authorization from the management of the store.
Customer Service also had a big pile of the tomes from people who turned them in, obviously pissed of at getting unwanted shit put on their windshields, which could have got stuck on the windows if it rained. And what if this big heavy thing broke somebody’s windshield wiper?
Trespassing, littering, and being an attractive nuisance drawing other solicitors, muggers, and carjackers is not a right to freedom of expression!
Let the soliciters give this tome away only to people who request it or let them post the text online, all on their own property or wherever they are welcomed, but quit trespassing, littering, and ruining the lives of shoppers and workers!
I haven’t missed a thing, Iron Man. All Individual Rights are limited by the same-held Individual Rights of others.
Should 2nd Amendment absolutists nuke Toronto?
That’s a rhetorical question. Toronto should be nuked for many reasons.
Isn't that where chemjeff lives?
He's reason #6
Does he really? It now makes more sense.
More than one could put into words.
While other forms of peaceful protest are defensible, there is a compelling reason to draw the line at vandalism.
We're kidding here, right? Tell me this is a joke article, like that "In defense of Hunger" article posted on the UN site, yes?
Recently Just Stop Oil activists blocked a street, preventing at least one man from getting his wife to the A&E at hospital. Besides personal losses from this conduct there are financial ones, all of which should be charged to the protestors.
Just because you are morally pure doesn't mean you are not responsible for damages.
That was a feature, not a bug. JSO are white supremacists, they block ambulances in areas where most people are brown or black. I have no idea why the press in the UK won't call them out for what they are, despite their white-supremacist statements.
"Likewise, committing vandalism by soup to send a message about climate change may be 'expressive,' but attempting to destroy someone else's work of art crosses moral and legal boundaries."
So is killing a person, hijacking a plane or torching a building.
I didn't really care for the FIRE advocate specifying torching a place of worship, though FIRE is pretty good so I imagine it's just a weird detail and not an attempt to justify torching places in general.
Though, I think it adds to the weirdness of the article in that we got a clip from an Expert to let us know that murdering politicians does, in fact, cross a free speech line.
Given the news over the last 6 years or so I think Reason's preferred audience needs that reminder.
Back during the BLM riots there were occasions when Reason seemed cool with vandalism. I'm glad Emma clarified matters.
After leaving my previous job 12 months ago, i've had some good luck to learn about this website which was a life-saver for me.They offer jobs for which people can work online from their house. My latest paycheck after working for them for 4 months was for $4500.Amazing thing about is that the only thing required is simple typing skills and access to internet.
Read all about it here........>>> OnlineCareer1
Please provide a link.
Stupid.
The culprits appear to be minors. You don't think they should face jail time for "expressing themselves"? Fine. The new rule is they and their parents should be jointly and severally liable for any damage caused. Want to vandalize a multi-million dollar painting? Go ahead. Just know that the price of it is your parents will lose everything and you'll spend your life in indentured servitude.
They aren't minors, they're adults, and have been charged as such.
Huh. They look like they are about 14.
They could be miners.
You lost me.
Keep digging.
Child labor laws keep minors from being miners.
Obviously, the punishment for this crime should be to have an earlobe removed (without anesthesia.)
I think that's a style of the day.
Like wearing an onion on the belt. 🙂
They need to be whalloped like Popeye stoked on spinach...until they see a Starry Night swirling over their heads. 🙂
To be clear, Just Stop Oil is a genocidal white supremacist movement, not climate campaigners.
They accept the scientific consensus on climate change, have noted the bit where it says that doing to much in prevention will stop us being able to act in mitigation, and that the net effect will be that billions of brown people in Asia and Africa will die unnecessarily, and have decided to campaign for us to seize the opportunity to ethnically cleanse the planet. JSO, Extinction Rebellion, Greta the Nordic Princess, etc are all campaigning for genocide.
I'm noticing pink hair. There seems to be a pattern evolving here.
I think I'm half serious when I say this, but anime has ruined our children.
My wife has pink hair, and I can tell you she's more libertarian than easily half the commentariat.
Is she fat-positive too? [discrete thumbs up]
Only in the chest region. Guess I'm lucky that way.
And a wonderful fashion sense.
https://twitter.com/SGMUKnews/status/1581628154707611648
Here's how a libertarian publication writes about this incident:
The anti-human vandalism of Just Stop Oil
The assault on van Gogh’s Sunflowers is a repudiation of human civilisation.
Many in the comments section have been begging Reason to discuss the identity-based worldview that's completely swamped the left. But no, food trucks, open borders and chin-scratching about whether or not this is free speech. How the mediocre have fallen.
Reason is more than happy to discuss it by making identity the focal point for any article they bring forward, relevant or not. Now if you expected them to repudiate the SJW identity politics cult and approach things from a libertarian perspective I'm afraid you're looking to the wrong writers.
Meanwhile, Reason politely ignores the full team FBI-SWAT raids on people who blocked an abortion clinic and the guy who may have pushed a counter-protester who was screaming at his son.
Blocking people's way isn't peaceful expression either. The past two years of "mostly peaceful" bullshit has made me consider getting a Mad Max-style cow catcher on my vehicle.
‘Are you more concerned about the protection of a painting or the protection of our planet and people?’
Put me down for the painting.
Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that their delusional paranoia about climate change has some modicum of truth to it (it doesn't, but let's pretend for a moment) - there is still no causal connection between destroying the painting and stopping climate change. You're just being a destructive child having a temper tantrum.
The only connection is that people don't actually give a shit about their cause, so in order to get 'people talking' about their cause they have to do anything and everything to get anyone to notice them.
Of course, they gave zero thought into what kind of coverage they would get. Or, even more likely, they thought a compliant media would 'paint' them as brave heros of the cause.
Personally I'm of the opinion they should have been left there as an exhibit until they got desperate enough to tear their skin off to escape the situation they put themselves into. That exhibit would actually be better than other exhibits of modern art I've been to in the past ten years.
What the...
Fuck! Even Sarc can't defend Reason for this article. When Reason's writers have lost Sarc....
I think that's the signal for the zombie apocalypse to start.
Oh, he recovered don't worry.
'phew' dodged a bullet there
Most of what I do is clarify to rational people that the loudmouths who take criticism of team red to mean praise for team blue are morons. In a literal sense. Sorry if you take that personally. But it's true.
No that is not even close to what you do. It's what you claim to do, and you might even believe it, but it is not even close. It's actually kinda cringe worthy watching how self deluded you are to believe this is what you do. You assume any criticism at Reason is right wing attacks. It's rather pathetic.
Also, if this is your intention you're extremely bad at it. Because no one believes that is your intentions.
love to see them left glued to whatever and everyone walk away
On the same day that the museum decides to fumigate.
Leave them glued to the wall, but with a police guard. Once they do pull themselves loose, the cops can arrest them, take them to the station, charge them, then release them to the hospital to have their wounds tended to.
I hope they used plenty of glue!
Use roofing nails to keep them in place.
Trouble is they're glued to the frame. That French cop had it right, he yanked their glued hands right off the pavement. The one protestor's reaction would make a soccer player proud.
Throwing a can of tomato soup at a precious work of art has little to do with fighting fossil fuels.
Ahem. That artist used *oil* paint.
Seriously, throw the book at these clowns.
But they were plant based oils, so where to come down on that one?
Partially hydrogenate them and recommend them as part of a heart-healthy diet for 50-75 yrs.
The problem is, these protesters are more than likely the children of the privileged classes, so it's hands off.
I think there might be something here about how we have infantalized teenagers too much as well. Though I actually don't know what it's like in the UK. Listening to random podcasts and such, I get the sense that the infantalization of people until they're like, 25, these days is a very American trend.
Teenagers should be infantilized.
We should not be listening to teenagers for geopolitical advice... yet increasingly we do.
First, clean your room, once that's done, then work for about 30 years, after that, then think about maybe sticking your little toe out into the world and have a minor, quiet opinion on how other people might live.
I think that's this "From the Mouth Of Babes Comes Truth" fetish we have in the US. Might be more broad than here, but we have it in the US.
At the same time, we are making arguments to protect teenagers from the consequences of their decisions until they're well into their mid-twenties these days. And I think that also keeps people in this retarded state of growth way too long.
The laws against child labor have been taken to such extremes that in many states if you're under 18 it's nearly impossible to find work. This has definitely diminished their ability to mature. Combined with trying to push everyone into college and thus extending their adolescence well into adulthood, are we at all surprised that this generation is less mature and resilient than their predecessors?
This is in the same line of reasoning as punching nazis.
Tomato soup is acidic. They could have have at least used something that was ph neutral. They either did not give a shit if the painting was ruined or are as ignorant as you might imagine someone pulling a stunt like this would have to be.
The thing that strikes me as always about lefty radicals is how unethical they are in supposed defense of ethical environmentalism. Just like when they block freeways and bridges, trapping people in massive traffic delays, destroying artwork has nothing at all to do with their cause, but it gets them media coverage. There is zero justification and the only appropriate response is maximum punishment under any law they break.
The painting has a glass cover, so they didn't manage to damage the painting itself. The perps have been charged with criminal damage to the frame and cover.
"The thing that strikes me as always about lefty radicals"
These aren't lefty radicals. They're white supremacists.
Not mutually exclusive.
Tomato soup is acidic. They could have have at least used something that was ph neutral.
3 parts tomato soup to 1 part bleach?
Anyone ever informed them that blocking traffic actually increases GHG emissions?
So, Seattle reducing its city-wide speed limit to 25mph, narrowing all the roads and generally slowing traffic down is increasing CO2 emissions?
*furiously scribbling notes*
Man... I wonder of anyone at city hall has ever looked at it in these terms.
Traffic Zero is still going hard, I see.
Maybe someday we'll get to a place where traffic deaths in Seattle are less than the hobo murders.
Yeah, anyone explain to them that modern ICE are less efficient at low speeds? It's not even true that most engines are most efficient at 55mph anymore, that most are designed to be most efficient at 65-70mph these days, as that's the average highway speeds. But every article (especially from the government) on saving gas recommends driving at 55.
They wouldn't care.
The whole thing was a stunt arranged with the press *and the museum*.
This makes as much sense as posing the question "how should sex positive activists feel about removing penalties for rape?" There is a violation against others in the act that has nothing to do with the activism in either case. That this is an article at all is mind boggling except as a primer to lead marxist progressives back to sanity but given the horseshit the writers here try to justify that doesn't seem likely.
Why are we even pretending to entertain this?
There's no line of libertarian thinking that violating property = free speech.
The editors were asleep at the wheel.
There are editors at Reason? Really? I thought there were only writers and publishers. Oversight for writers is an internalized option.
When everyone is an editor nobody is.
Everyone under the age of 30 here is an Associate Editor and those over 30 are relegated to the Contributor title.
Are we surprised? Remember Reason has also defended animal rights activists who trespass on private property to make "undercover videos" (often staged and heavily edited) as free speech, too.
Like the World Economic Forum, they're just asking questions!
After leaving my previous job 12 months ago, i've had some good luck to learn about this website which was a life-saver for me.They offer jobs for which people can work online from their house. My latest paycheck after working for them for 4 months was for $4500.Amazing thing about is that the only thing required is simple typing skills and access to internet.
Read all about it here........>>> OnlineCareer1
I’m going to assume deadline crunch to provide work or a slow news day was driving the motivation for this article.
What a fucking stupid question, anywhere, anytime, but even more so for an author claiming to be libertarian on a website claiming to be libertarian.
What next?
Should Free-Speech Absolutists Defend Throwing People Out Of Wheelchairs? Hey, they scream, that's speech, right?
Emma Camp, go away. You have written the most ridiculous headline I can remember seeing recently, and that includes some pretty bizarre climate warming nonsense.
"Lots of conduct 'sends a message' but is nevertheless both immoral and illegal, like killing a political opponent, hijacking a plane, or torching a place of worship,"
Obligatory.
Since the painting already needed curation after the soup, I don't think that adding a little blood and brain matter would have made much difference. Or, if shooting them in the head is too harsh, perhaps just remove the artwork from their reach and leave them and their crazy-glued hands to sit there for a while and let people have at them. Or if that's still too harsh, just leave them and their glued hands to sit and fester until they beg for some relief.
Vandalism is a crime because it is a PROPERTY CRIME! It's not speech, it's damaging property. In this case, priceless property. That we've reached the stage where Emma Camp can't tell the difference between speech and property is profoundly sad. Where are the Reason editors? They should know better!
Free speech is fine. I'm a 99% free speech absolutist. No inciting violence, slander, libel, but criticize was much as you want even using the F and N words if you were raising in a toilet. But defacing artwork is not speech, it's property damage.
You are free to spray paint slogans on your own property, but you may not spray paint slogans on someone else's property without permission.
All of the artwork is safe behind glass, so no property is being destroyed. Unless the carpet needs to be replaced.
If someone shoots at you while you’re wearing a bulletproof vest then no crime is committed? Or is it understood that the attempt is a crime by itself?
The glass isn't property? You do know what the term "vandalism" means don't you?
Goalposts go whoosh as Cuntingham carries them from artwork to glass!
Either is wrong. It is still vandalism. Can you ever make an argument rather than just yelling "goalposts" and "strawman"? Just once?
Yeah,he also uses it's just sarcasm when called out. Or calls it an ad hominem.
No fucking shit duh it's vandalism. I was clarifying to BB that the art was unharmed.
Then you all go off unhinged.
He didn't say the art was damaged, he said damage was done, and if the frame is an antique (especially if it was associated with the original painting) then it also is priceless. Your remark was completely inane.
Oh no! I didn't think about the frame! Nooooooo! That completely invalidates everything I said! That means I support vandalism as free speech and I voted for Biden and I love leftists and I hate Trump oh nooooooo!!!!!!11!!1
No, it means your remark was completely inane. He never specified the art was damaged, but you felt the need to rush in and make your inane defense anyhow, completely ignoring that the frame (which quite possibly is also priceless) anyhow. Trying sophomoric sarcasm doesn't absolve you for the inanity of your remark. Just stop before you dig yourself even deeper.
Dude. This is what I replied to:
it’s damaging property. In this case, priceless property.
Take a breath.
Facepalm. God are you really that dense?
Spoiler: He really is.
I see you recovered enough from your shock at the stupidity of this article to revert back to your normal defense of Reason and leftists. Was worried their for minute that you had actually seen the light and realized what just about everyone else here in the comment section has known for several years, now.
Yep. Pointing out that no priceless paintings were destroyed in response to "it’s damaging property. In this case, priceless property" meant all that. Sure dude. Whatever you say.
Did you ever stop to question why you felt it necessary to even make that remark? And did you read that the frame was damaged, even if the painting wasn't? I'm sure the frame was worth something as well (especially if it was an antique). For fuck sake, your response was completely idiotic. Especially the remark about the carpet. God, sometimes (all to often in your case) it's better to keep quiet and risk looking stupid rather than opening your mouth and removing any doubt. Some self reflection would go a long ways in your case.
Did you ever stop to question why you felt it necessary to even make that remark?
Yeah. Because BB apparently thought the art was damaged.
Ain't my fault you read that to mean I fully support whatever it is you thought that meant I support.
He didn't say the art was damaged. Reread his post nowhere does he say the art was damaged. Maybe he was referring to the frame, which the article says was damaged.
it’s damaging property. In this case, priceless property.
Which I read to mean the painting got soup on it, which it didn't. Oh my God! Oh my God! I didn't think of the frame!! What about the poor frame!! That means everything I said was wrong!!!!
idjits
God, what a jejune defense. You need to stop making a fool of yourself. It's entirely possible in a fine art exhibit that the frame also is priceless. But instead of taking the L you'd rather continue to make yourself look foolish.
I say “Hey, the painting was untouched,” you yell “WHAT ABOUT THE FRAME YOU LEFTIST LIAR” and I’m the foolish one. K. Whatever you say.
I never said leftist. I made fun of your impulsive need to deflect any criticism of Reason and especially it's illibertatian stances.
Again, you go assuming anyone criticizing you is calling you a lefty, just as you claim above that everyone you criticize is because they assume everyone criticizing then is a leftist. Try responding to what people actually write rather than what you assume the mean. You would get a lot less shit if you did.
Is the glass covering on that painting water tight to IP67 standards?
I think IP65 would be plenty. Unless there are some nearby fire hoses.
Holy cow, people! All I said was that the art was surrounded by a "no soup for you" field in the form of a piece of glass.
I didn't say it wasn't vandalism. I didn't say the idiots didn't deserve a swift kick in the ass. Just clarifying that the art was unharmed. No priceless paintings were destroyed.
Take a sedative! No sarc!
Sorry, see above. I actually used sarcasm in my original response. Maybe practice some more.
Your exact quote: "All of the artwork is safe behind glass, so no property is being destroyed. Unless the carpet needs to be replaced."
To which Biggs asked: "The glass isn’t property? You do know what the term “vandalism” means don’t you?"
And your response was: "Goalposts go whoosh as Cuntingham carries them from artwork to glass!"
You're the one in the wrong here Sarc. All you had to do was say "fair point, but thankfully the painting itself is fine" or something to that effect. But no, you had to lash out for no good reason.
The frame was damaged.
That sucks. While not the case here, quite often when you find a work of art the frame is worth more than the painting. I know people who've made money buying paintings at yard sales and selling the frames.
Do you know the value of the frame? In order to make that assumption, you need to know the value of the frame. And yes I'm being pedantic.
And yes I’m being
pedantica penis with ears.ftfy
Haha. Boy you sure showed me. Unable to actually debate you go for junior high insults. I feel so chagrined.... Geesh and you wonder why everyone attacks you on here...
It was that or, to the tune of The Pink Panther, "Pedant. Pedant. Pedant pedant pedant pedant pedaaaaaant, pedadidadant."
Wow, you're just really amateurish at this aren't you? Neither is very sophisticated or amusing.
Reminds me of the burning the flag issue back in the day. Laws against burning flags aside, it was never about free speech but property. Who’s flag is it and where are you burning it?
I am going to beat a dead horse here, but Reason thinks laws that protect me from having animal rights activists come onto my ranch and make deceptive videos are violations of 1A (oh they do admit there are possibly trespass violations, maybe). I don't see them saying laws that breaking into ENB's house and taping her in her shower (not sure who would want to) are violations of the 1A. As long as you call yourself an activist, Reason becomes really squishy about privacy.
And private property.
This article is exactly analogous to one asking, "Should property rights advocates defend protestors stealing?" WTF?
You know what other speech is free speech? Yep, Republicans on Twit….
No. Next question.
There are huge protests going on all over Europe right now. The journolist has decided that Americans can't know about that and instead must be told about some tranny defacing some paintings.
Reason does know how to follow orders.
https://notthebee.com/article/so-has-the-media-told-you-about-the-massive-protests-over-energy-bills-happening-in-europe-right-now
The next time a Reason contributor writes a column whose principal feature is the destruction of private property WITHOUT EVEN MENTIONING PROPERTY RIGHTS, I'm gonna get annoyed.
What in the actual fuck, Reason? Have all of you completely forgotten what "libertarian" even means?
You ask that after the last seven years?
It's so weird to me that on a libertarian site there is almost never any mention of the NAP. Most of their arguments come from left wing moralistic principles or simply their own self-interested hobby horse. If we had a libertarian publication here then most issues would be easily resolved on NAP grounds and then we could play at the margins with different morals and preferences
You have to know something to forget it.
"Should Free-Speech Absolutists Defend Vandalism of Precious Artwork?"
Only if, for some reason, you prioritize free speech over property rights.
In which case I will come over and 'speak' at your house.
FFS, I don't understand how this is even a question.
If I shit all over your floor, what? Are you supposed to just take it because I am 'expressing' myself?
Someone tags your house and you just let it happen 'because it's speech'?
You didn't build that!
The mistake these clowns made was their target. They needed to do something like smear shit all over a crucifix, then they would be heroes.
"While other forms of peaceful protest are defensible, there is a compelling reason to draw the line at vandalism"
Ok.
Camp, what the fuck is the reason? What is your argument? It's not here in the fucking article.
*EMMA!* WHERE'S THE REASON EMMA!
These antics make you wonder if they’re not being paid by big oil. Who would want anything to do with them?
Environmentalism is a cult. They are nuts. I don't think we are very far away from seeing them resort to suicide bombings and such.
I like how Rush Limbaugh described environmentalists. He called them watermelons. Green on the outside, red on the inside. Stealth commies.
That was accurate back then. I think they are something even worse today. Commies at least wanted to build something. Today they just want to watch the world burn.
Yeah, radical environmentalists are nihilists, they see humans as a cancer on Gaia that needs to be eliminated. Fortunately, most of them don’t believe in reproducing at least.
But precious few of them are so convinced that humans are harming mother Gaia that they remove themselves from her back.
Then they should start with themselves. You know, set a good example for the rest of us.
They're all vegan and not reproducing, so its a self correcting problem. I feel bad for their vegan pets though...
I was thinking they should start drinking the Kool-Aid, if you know what I mean.
As long as it's cruelty free Kool-Aid.
It'll be organic and all natural plant based hemlock derived Kool-Aid.
Sadly, a lot of them believe in teaching.
We just need them to cut out the middle step and become a straight up suicide cult and leave the rest of us alone.
How is this even a question at a libertarian magazine? Have property rights stopped being important?
"Committing vandalism by soup to send a message about climate change may be 'expressive,'
How about beating a vandal to death with a soup can? Is that expressive?
It would certainly be hilarious...
Someone asked if it would be ok to throw sunflowers at Warhol's soup cans.
Answer: no. No deep dive needed on this topic.
Should free speech defenders object to killing people? I would argue that they should. Thanks.
No. This is just dumb stuff to get rage clicks. Be better.
A dying culture invariably exhibits personal rudeness. Bad manners. Lack of consideration for others in minor matters. A loss of politeness, of gentle manners, is more significant than is a riot. ~Robert A. Heinlein
The private property issue aside, the lack of manners and want to destroy beautiful things shows their lack of direction or meaning in their lives.
This behavior, that undermines the common good, and moreover, common decency, shows that ideological bigotry is one of the most destructive forces at work in our society today.
I guess "Papa" Heinlein still lives á la Lazarus Long and must have visited my store.
Nobody with a functioning brain cell thinks vandalism is free speech.