Putting a premium on First Amendment rights

In the New York Times this morning, a street performer and protester’s arrest raises ethical questions about first amendment rights. “Reverend Billy,” a.k.a. William Talen, was brought to court under charges of harassing police officers for trailing them with a megaphone in Union Square, repeating the words of the First Amendment. The account of his story frames it as a philosophical issue: “Does reciting the First Amendment serve a legitimate purpose?” The article does well to note the defendant’s reference of the Court of Appeals’ decision that harassment must serve “no legitimate purpose,” and to say that Talen’s behavior was such implies that the recitation of the First Amendment “must have no thoughts or ideas besides threats, intimidation or ‘coercive utterances…’” The stage is set for a brilliant victory on the side of street corner soap box speakers everywhere when Talen returns to court next month.

Free speech is under a more violent attack in Burma, where monks continue to lead anti-government protests and security forces try to suppress them. The Washington Post has a comprehensive account of the situation that recalls the background for those who have not been following the story. It includes reporting on the major protest locations yesterday, along with statements made by President Bush at the U.N. threatening to place visa and economic restrictions on Burmese leaders. The article’s dateline reads Thailand, though, and while one early piece of information is attributed to a Burmese exile group in that city, it is unclear whether information on the rest of the reported events was observed firsthand by the reporter or obtained from other sources.

Geoff Edgers’ article in the Boston Globe on Mass MoCA’s decision not to show Christoph Buchel’s unfinished installation offers one of the most balanced accounts of the dispute I’ve seen thus far. Edgers acknowledges the criticism Mass MoCA has received throughout for its treatment of the artist, but he also discloses just how much money the delayed exhibition, which had already gone over-budget before the court disputes began, cost the museum. The article includes comments from those who support the museum’s decision, as well as Buchel’s response, a tongue-in-cheek offer to permanently install a work for free: rearranging the museum sign’s letters to read “Mass CoMA.” The article is primed for a follow-up, after mentioning that Buchel still has an appeal in seeking monetary damages after the court ruled in Mass MoCA’s favor and that the materials left behind from the installation present a huge recycling challenge.

In the midst of all these questions of freedom of speech and expression, capitalism trumps all as Sotheby’s prepares to sell a copy of the Magna Carta previously displayed in the National Archives in Washington. The article in The Times of London focuses on the historical significance of the document, not mentioning until much later that it is a huge coup for Sotheby’s. At least what the vice-chairman of Sotheby’s calls a “talisman of liberty” is being sold for a good cause: owner Ross Perot wants to the proceeds to fundraise “medical research, improving public education and assisting wounded soldiers and their families.”