Why do people get treated like criminals just for posting this poster?
http://www.click2houston.com/news/20950945/detail.html#



However, if you are pro-Obama you aren't treated like a criminal. Its perfectly ok to post these images.



This isn't about being leftwing or rightwing. This is about free speech. Whether you are for or against Obama.

What about the original definition of "liberal"?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal

favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

Why is it "vandalism" and/or "racism" to portray Obama as the joker? But its ok to post pictures that worship him. See the double standard here?

Isn't that a sign of a police state? You know... where the pictures of the leader are overtly displayed and its perfectly ok but anything that criticizes the leader is not good.


Your liberties are being destroyed. Wake up.

The man who originally did the hope stuff did get into trouble for a couple of reasons- putting the images up as well as using that phto to make that pic without any attribution or permission.
:)

I'm surprised you can't see the obvious issue with the joker image ;)
Why do you think they used that image to ridicule him...?

WHITE FACE.

Yes Kyupol, it's highly racist. It's nothing to do with batman or any silly comic stuff. If it was, no one would really care and we'd all just find it either inane or funny. NO, the intention here is more sinister than any comic character villains could ever be: the idea is to show that a "black" man is masquerading as a "white" one.

...There's free speech, and then there's hate speech.

Well actually, I'm pretty sure it's vandalism to post any old poster. Or that's how it works here.

So...Yeah...

you do realize that you need the building owner's permission to post things like that, right? if he was just posting this crap without the owner's consent then he was infringing on their liberties, not the other way around. would you like it if i can over and plastered my opinions on your front door?

in other news: Kyupol leaps to rash conclusion, explodes into impotent diatribe over falsely perceived wrongs!

seriously, at least consider the angles next time.

Also they're not that funny.

Though I see it as Constitutionally protected free speech, Obama as a lawless anarchist like the Joker, the white face connotation is there.

Though where was the outcry about the Aunt Jemima and "House Nigger" cartoons and comments about Condolezza Rice and Colin Powell? Suddenly this is racism because one side does this, but when a Conservative is depicted similarly it gets a pass?



Shouldn't we look in the mirror before we throw accusations around?

But it was perfectly ok to make fun of George W.

Bush compared to a chimp.


Bush compared to Hitler. (aka fascist)


Bush as the Joker


When Obama does the same things as George Bush (the wars, the destruction of liberties, etc.), why is it not ok to make fun of Obama even if they are so similar?

are any of those images posted on someone else's property without permission Kyupol?

are they?

you realize that crying wolf every five seconds means that when someone does spot an actual wolf noone's gonna care right? seriously, stop and wait for a valid point of conversation to discuss your grievances instead of being a lame joke.

Orin J Master
are any of those images posted on someone else's property without permission Kyupol?

are they?

you realize that crying wolf every five seconds means that when someone does spot an actual wolf noone's gonna care right? seriously, stop and wait for a valid point of conversation to discuss your grievances instead of being a lame joke.

I guess the space under the bridge is private property



I might have a bridge to sell you.

not very quick, are you. most public property requires the city's permission to post flyers. as far as i know the telephone poles are posted on because they're owned by the power companies and they can't be bothered to deal with that much paperwork.

but you're just too blind to see the facts, aren't you? you've been suckered by the people you think you're protesting. you're tilting at windmills so noone will see the crimes they're really committing, it's a little sad really.

bravo1102
Though where was the outcry about the Aunt Jemima and "House Nigger" cartoons and comments about Condolezza Rice and Colin Powell? Suddenly this is racism because one side does this, but when a Conservative is depicted similarly it gets a pass?

I heard it. I found those depictions pretty disgusting.

But then intellectually they're not on the same level as the Obama one. Those depictions are more like personal criticisms directed towards those people specifically, asking them whether they were falling into those old stereotype roles or asking whether they were being PUT into those stereotype roles. So that's VERY different from the implication that Obama is pretending to be some kind of white guy so he can rule as a black man by stealth.

---------------
Kyupol, your post was nonsense again, as always. Orin addressed the legality.
The comparison to the chimp has no racial implications in that context, so that's irrelevant. The Bush joker WAS the the batman character villain and nothing else- so it was inane and really boring. Nothing much else.

This thread has no substance.

kyupol
When Obama does the same things as George Bush (the wars, the destruction of liberties, etc.), why is it not ok to make fun of Obama even if they are so similar?

c'mon you know the answer to that!

not very quick, are you. most public property requires the city's permission to post flyers. as far as i know the telephone poles are posted on because they're owned by the power companies and they can't be bothered to deal with that much paperwork.

In a free society, one does not need permission to exercise their right to free speech. In a free society, one should be able to protest, distribute flyers, post signs anywhere they want on PUBLIC PROPERTY.

Without being harrassed by the agents of the state.

But if you wanna live in a Big Brother world where you gotta ask permission for everything... sorry but I gotta disagree with you.

Kyupol, your post was nonsense again, as always. Orin addressed the legality.
The comparison to the chimp has no racial implications in that context, so that's irrelevant. The Bush joker WAS the the batman character villain and nothing else- so it was inane and really boring. Nothing much else.

This thread has no substance.

Oh. Its because Obama is a black man it means that you cannot compare him to the joker or a chimp or to hitler. I guess its racism to point out the mistakes of one black man and make fun of one individual black man.

If that's the case I guess in your definition of racism, I am also a racist.

Because:
- George Bush is White.
- I criticize George Bush.
- Because I criticize George Bush it means I hate white people.
- Therefore I'm a racist and I hate white people.

- Kim Jong Il is Asian
- I criticize Kim Jong Il
- Because I criticize Kim Jong Il it means I hate Asians.
- Therefore I'm a racist and I hate Asians (even if I'm one myself lol! ).


Ok. Both Ozone and Orin wanna live in a police state.

But don't you think that it should be at least consistent?

Come on. We cannot have the following signs posted anymore:
- lost cat/dog signs
- garage sale signs
- come see this new restaurant signs
- rock band signs
- fast divorce signs
- driving school signs
- etc.

You're arguing semantics. We are specifically talking about a black man being photoshopped to look like a character who has a whitewashed face.

If Obama is being photoshopped to look like Lex Luthor, or Kingpin, or Galactus, or Two Face, or Penguin, or Dr. Doom, or whoever, it wouldn't matter.

But why did the poster-maker specifically use Joker? WTF does Obama have to do with Joker? Oh, right. The whitewashed face.

So the whitewashed face is equivelent to the monkeys in ruffles and top hats images from Reconstruction?

Is that so different from "house nigger" depictions of blacks serving the white man as opposed to Obama being white to rule? How is one personal and the other is public? If it's published, wherever it is it in the public domain. In the context of American race history it is identical. This has a long history in American politics and has always gone both ways. Lincoln was depicted as the broadlipped, stooping monkey faced black for his policies favoring blacks. Obama Changing to copy the white to rule or top hats on monkeys because blacks ruled in the post-bellum South, or becoming the subserviant Uncle Tom to please the white power structure. Same context and same thing in the American experience.

It's an old image and for me is Constitutionally protected Free Speech where ever it is posted. Why do we single it out next to all the Garage Sale notices next to it? Because somehow anything regarding race is "hate speech". But just because of the color it's hate speech as opposed to a comment on his policy? Lincoln and so many other whites in minstrel show blackface was the same thing. Hate speech is still protected speech no matter how distasteful.

It is so different from the posts in the "publick spaces" denigrating "Fat George in London" for his policies? You should see what they compared him to! Or the acts he and his ministers were shown performing.

Government has always found some law to stifle free speech; vandalism, vagrantcy, public nuisance, Sedition Acts. That's what matters not what the law states, but what it is trying to stifle; the protected Constitutional Right of Free Political Expression. That trumps all other laws. Congress can make no law and that means all public authorities can make no law. Protected Constitutional rights. Throw out the Bill of Rights because I don't agree with the opinion and I find it offensive.

Ironic how those who protest here are from nations without Constitutionally guaranteed free expression? Better not deny the Holocaust or tell the truth about the hateful contents of the Koran. Both are protected opinions in the USA. I remember those offensive and hateful handbills posted in the "publick spaces" of Boston Common.

I explained the differences bravo. There's nothing more I can do there, the meanings and intentions are quite different and extremely distinct.
It's fine to blend all events and happenings into some general beige mass of history past, but that doesn't minimise what made one thing different from another and the meaning of one thing as opposed to another at the time and in context.

Such "long view" ways of looking at things doesn't help to understand their meaning, in fact it's not very useful in this instance because it obscures, obfusticates and confuses things with other things (used in that way it's often a tool of sneaky people who want to attack the back way). What its more properly used for is understanding a pattern of events- not understanding or evaluating the events themselves.

What you are missing is that the context is the same. Societies sensitivites may have changed but the context is the same and the images are the same. It is no different from the monkeys in top hats from Reconstruction. Just as offensive, just as awful, but the opinion it expresses is identical whether it is 1869 or 2009.

It only obfucates the points for those who don't know the history and refuse to acknowledge the similarities between what was and what is. Sorry ozone but again you are showing your ignorance of American history.

What is past is prologue and one can only truly understand the present by understanding how we got here. Without knowing the Reconstruction and Jim Crow and the history of American political imagery these images lose an dimension of their meaning. You're making a cube into a square.

bravo1102
What you are missing is that the context is the same.

No it's not. You're comparing unlike with unlike. Your "same" is "American politics". Don't be a neophyte man, I konw you're not. Opposition and protest is as old as humanity, but each and every time an instance happens, something occurs, people are involved in an action- it is unique and of its time specifically.
-ie. Martin Luther King, John F Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln: all popular men assassinated over politics. Was it all the same thing each time?
NO. Each assassin had their own particular motives, each assassination occurred at a time and a specific political siltation that was then changed in a particular way. The social context that surrounded each event was particularly unique, even with the Kennedy and King shootings being so close together.

-As I say, your way of looking at things is just useful in terms of patterns of behaviour, it contributes almost nothing to the understanding of the actual instance. But if you want to speculate on "what happens after" or "how might the opposition respond" etc, it's just the thing :)

mlai
You're arguing seman-RACE CARD'D!

i'm willing to argue that the dumb shit that posted these didn't understand the whitewashing thing. that's not why he got in trouble. he got in trouble for vandalizing public and private property. the news just thought that adding a racist angle would sell the story better that "right-wing moron forgets that rights extend equally to people he doesn't like, covers whatever he feels like in his opinions".

the joker's simply a recognizable symbol of a "bad man" in popular culture right now because of the movie. the fact that his face is whitened like clown makeup is probably a kowinkidink, because this dipshit likely doesn't know enough about US history to understand the possible insult there.

guy probably has the IQ of loose gravel if he's going around putting his posters on everything in broad daylight like that.

Ofc he got in trouble for vandalizing. They can't charge him with being a racist, because that's a protected right.

I'm not saying he doesn't have the right to make the poster. He can protest on the street with an effigy of Obama in slave clothing (even though the man's genealogy has nothing to do with American blacks) being hung from a tree, and that's protected free speech.

I'm just pointing out how using the Joker is different from using other comic book characters.

you're also infusing a level of racial importance that may not actually be there.

Joker is a very visible symbol right now. but he's also a white guy who got he face bleached in an accident, so it's entirely possible the moron didn't. you can argue there is a racial motivation to the choice of criminals, but it's circumstancial. he hasn't made (as far as i know, feel free to correct me) any claims based in racial slurs, and Shrubya was depicted as the joker too, in this same thread even. it's simply giving this little grab for attention more legs than it really deserves, due to being oversensitive about the matter.

Orin J Master
you're also infusing a level of racial importance that may not actually be there.

I believe that it is. It's far too big to miss.

That doesn't mean that people should avoid parody or protest because they might offend. No, what it means is that when they DO parody and protest that they don't do so on the basis of a racial attack, which this really would seem to be.

One of the things I am very, very tired of is these inbred racialist nuts coming out of the woodwork to attack the same old targets and then trying to disguise it by pretending it's all legitimate and harmless. And THEN crying like babies when people call them on what they're really doing!

The reality is that we wouldn't mind if they were legitimate, non-racialist attacks. But so much anti-Obama stuff has been just that: questions about his birth, his religion, his choices of judge, his early schooling... All that has revolved around what and who he is, his legitimacy as a human being.

Coming after the last guy, with how little wrong or impact he's made anywhere as yet (especially compared to the last guy), this fanatical level of hate is just beyond belief and simply can not be explained away as normal political opposition. To do so is to actively insult the right. I know many, many smart, intelligent ordinary right wing people and not a single one of them manifest their political opinions in this form.

Oh no! Our civil liberties!

Rabble! Rabble! Rabble!



Here's a fun game you can try at home: Try advertising your comic, in mass on public and privately owned property without permission and see if they make you stop. Don't ask permission from someone. Just do it.

What's that? Someone made you stop? Maybe you got tickets for vandalism?

NOW do the same thing, except instead of advertising your comic you advertise something even vaguely controversial, like say, your position on abortion, regardless of what it is.

Huh, still made you stop, eh? More tickets for vandalism? Criminal mischief now too?


You have the same civil liberties you had ten years ago and will have ten years from now. Stop watching the retarded news, dummy.

No one would've gotten any tickets if they just slapped the poster on their facebook page

Orin J Master
not very quick, are you. most public property requires the city's permission to post flyers. as far as i know the telephone poles are posted on because they're owned by the power companies and they can't be bothered to deal with that much paperwork.

You know, this fact actually really disturbs me. I really wish that people were allowed to do whatever they want to under bridges etc that seem to look abandoned and crappy anyway. I wrote my thesis on graffiti and the whole time I was wishing that all the people I was reading about and talking to werent getting arrested left and right for vandilism. I mean, I kind of think they should have the right to have some spaces to express their opinions in the way that they feel they can express themselves the best, and although this obama poster thing may have been offensive, I think they should have been able to post their opinion, at least in places like this.

Jonko

Orin J Master
not very quick, are you. most public property requires the city's permission to post flyers. as far as i know the telephone poles are posted on because they're owned by the power companies and they can't be bothered to deal with that much paperwork.

You know, this fact actually really disturbs me. I really wish that people were allowed to do whatever they want to under bridges etc that seem to look abandoned and crappy anyway. I wrote my thesis on graffiti and the whole time I was wishing that all the people I was reading about and talking to werent getting arrested left and right for vandilism. I mean, I kind of think they should have the right to have some spaces to express their opinions in the way that they feel they can express themselves the best, and although this obama poster thing may have been offensive, I think they should have been able to post their opinion, at least in places like this.

the problem is the graffiti that's merely a gang marking. while some graffiti is truly impressive artwork, the majority (around here, anyways) is crude tags of little more that a gang name and maybe a racist threat against some other faction. the police aren't actually able to spend the time differentiating between the good stuff and the gang crap so they lump it all together to save money and manpower.

also, looking over it there's this minor detail:
Fuhre said he was posting the signs with his friends to win a cash prize in a video contest sponsored by an anti-socialism Web site.
so it wasn't any kind of political matter, he was doing it for a profit. i'm pretty sure he'd have gotten the same treatment if it had been over some other freakout of the week.

Unless there was clear intent to be racist, I can't see how anyone can actively say this shit is racist without pulling the political correctness card out of their ass.

Honestly, the Joker is one of the most popular villains of all time and is one that is instantly identifiable to pretty much everyone in US culture. Dr Doom, Kingpin, Lex Luthor, and Galactus are NOT immediately identifiable to the average person, thus any statement intended to be made would be lost on most of the population.



But posting the poster on private property? That's where the issue comes from, not the contents of the poster. People and businesses have the right to tell you what you can and cannot distribute on their buildings and properties. Posting such things in public is perfectly acceptable, but said example of a public posting is four of the damned thing all clumped into one area, and not even an area you would likely see or notice.


If you must make a statement, put the stuff where it'll at least get noticed and don't spam it everywhere.

Rich
Unless there was clear intent to be racist, I can't see how anyone can actively say this shit is racist without pulling the political correctness card out of their ass.

The term "political correctness" is a tool of the right that's used to justify racism and prejudice. That's all it is.

The idea is to think up any bureaucratic silliness and call it "politically correct" as a way to belittle the idea when it reality none of that has anything to do with the original meaning. So the term itself has now changed its meaning from: "it's not OK to be a racist" to: "I am a racist who self justifies" :)
-not saying that describes you in any way what-so-ever, but that's how the term tends to be used these days.

To understand how the poster can be racist you have to understand the amazingly long and well documented history of racist iconography.
And about the comic supervillain- Comicbook characters might get 100% recognition in a forum like this but in the wider community that figure is actually a bit lower, especially when we're NOT talking about that villain at all but how a man playing that villain looked in a few publicity shots and for some scenes in a recent film.

Considering you can say that posters that deliberately DO point out the race of both Condeleeza Rice and Powell are not on the same level as what is most certainly just an insensitive jab, I strongly question the degree of bias you bring to this debate.

Someone
-not saying that describes you in any way what-so-ever, but that's how the term tends to be used these days.

Yes, but there is a clear difference between not being political correct and being a racist. If I were to call a black man a nigger, that would be racist. If I were to immediately ask if he wanted to go get fried chicken and watermelon, even though I am only asking those things because they're the two most awesome foods ever, that would be politically incorrect.

The intent makes a world of difference in the meaning of someone's actions. =\

Rich
I strongly question the degree of bias you bring to this debate.

Nothing to do with bias at all, just education. I know more about the imagery, it's uses and what it means. I can read artworks like an essay. To me a picture is a million words and I understand them all :)

Someone
Yes, but there is a clear difference between not being political correct and being a racist.

That's not really being politically incorrect, that's just talking about yummy food. If references to those foods are problematic in a particular social instance and you still do it anyway, then all you're doing is being insensitive.

ozoneocean
I know more about the imagery, it's uses and what it means. I can read artworks like an essay. To me a picture is a million words and I understand them all :)

It's entirely possible you may be overthinking it. Do remember that it's possible for folks to be insensitive without being deliberately racist.

Someone
If references to those foods are problematic in a particular social instance and you still do it anyway, then all you're doing is being insensitive.

Which is what we call being politically incorrect due to racial insensitivity.