Sex Hysteria!

The censorship of art by Temecula city officials remains a contentious news item.  The Californian reports that the city is still persisting with its plan to act as sole judge of what qualifies as art worthy for exhibit in city venues.  As it stands now, G-rated Disney movies are more risqué than what is allowed in Temecula.

Temecula removed one painting that was a simple female nude and two others, one that showed a man smoking holding and the other showing a man holding a beer bottle.

“You’d have to go to the Taliban to find a culture that would ban images of nudity, smoking and drinking,” [Jennifer Doyle, an associate professor at the UC Riverside] said.

While Doyle clearly objected to the removal of the nude, she seemed to be more understanding about the other two.

As for the issue with Sanders’ paintings, Doyle said the decision to remove those paintings makes more sense due to the sensitive issues associated with children being exposed to images of people smoking or drinking.

If such commonplace scenes are considered inappropriate for family-friendly art, then we have really passed the point of no return when it comes to killing free expression in the name of protecting children.

This morning I did a Google search for censorship, art, and government.  As expected, China and Iran were heavily represented, but remarkably rare were items pointing to artistic censorship issues in the U.S.   Well, almost.  Weighing in at number ten, was Temecula California, which makes the news every few days as the government struggles with ways to sidestep that annoying First Amendment.  It reminds me of when Governor George Wallace of Alabama arrogantly and stubbornly stood in the school house door and insisted that the Constitution would not encroach on his domain.   Eventually even Wallace learned that the Constitution wasn’t something you follow only when it’s convenient.

Apparently the city government is still waffling about what to do. In answer to the controversy, the city recently required the addition of the following paragraph to the prospectus for an upcoming art show, essentially codifying the very actions that generated the censorship fiasco to begin with:

“The Merc is a facility owned by the City of Temecula and the City controls the art to be displayed in the Merc.  The judge will select no less than [28__] pieces of art (depending on  size) to be recommended to the City. The City will select, in its  sole discretion, [20-25__] pieces of art to be displayed at the Merc from the Judge’s recommendations. The City reserves the right to  cancel the exhibition at any time in its sole discretion.”

But now, according to swrnn.com:

“(The policy) is in the works, but we don’t have anything yet. I would like to believe we will have something on this in the next 30 days, or sooner,” [Assistent City Manager] Adams said by phone March 5.

Not everyone objects to the city’s flaunting of the First Amendment.

“As a parent and resident in this community I am pleased to know that (Mayor Comerchero) has chosen the more difficult path of protecting our children from exposure and am confident that there will be an opportunity for all artistic expression at another venue, where children will not be allowed,” [Resident Sarah Moore] wrote in an email.

Ah, yes.  He was only “protecting our children“.   That phrase is, of course, used to justify virtually all the legislation this website argues against.  While one of the paintings was of a nude, this is a good time to remember that two others were removed simply because they showed someone smoking and holding a brown bottle.    No, Ms Moore.  This is not protecting anyone.  Even the Nazis didn’t censor simple nudity.

The National Coalition Against Censorship has sent a new letter to Temecula California mayor Jeff Comerchero expressing their concern over the city’s censorship policies and offering to assist the city in working through the issue.