Anyone see this go down? This morning artist Yazmany Arboleda set up his latest instillation entitled,” The Assassination of Hillary Clinton/The Assassination of Barack Obama,” in a leased storefront right across the street from the NYT building. Once noticed, he was immediately questioned by the NYPD and Secret Service and it is reported that they shut him down, although the SS is denying that fact.

Arboleda’s argument is his instillation is art. ”It’s not supposed to be harmful. It’s about character assassination — about how Obama and Hillary have been portrayed by the media.” He added, “It’s about the media.”

I’m all for freedom of expression, speech, etc. It’s a fundamental right. However, when someone’s safety has been notably called into question, it seems more than very bone-headed to come out with an “assassination”  message, even if one’s referring to character, A- on the day after one of the characters in question becomes the democratic nominee and B- right in front of the NYT (although I understand the strategy if one’s trying to make a statement about media). 

I reviewed the First Amendment and according to the law there are several permissible government restrictions on the content of speech: 

The First Amendment does not protect speech or expression that harms the health, safety, or welfare of persons in the community. As a result, content regulation or restriction of speech is permissible to stop: (a) incitements (provocation to engage in immediate violence); (b) fighting words (confrontational words or threats likely to lead to immediate fighting); (c) obscenity (appeals to carnal interests; clearly offensive, and without redeeming social value); (d) defamation (falsehoods that harm someone); (e) commercial speech (false or misleading); and (f) speech by public employees (matters not of public concern).

Would an exhibit such as this be considered obscene? That’s certainly a hard one to prove. Is it misleading? Well, those few words that grace the storefront don’t exactly paint an exact picture about what the exhibit is really about? Is it about where the artist is delivering his message—such a public forum and very little context?  

It’s an interesting debate. What are your thoughts?