First off the picture of Shrek's penis is obviously sent because it's intended to be unpleasant and disgusting. Second, I don't think it's as difficult as you make it out to be to conclude that Shrek's erect penis is lacking in serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. If Shrek's erect penis cannot be said to be lacking in these respects then I'm not sure what does.
Trying to stake out a free speech claim here is a bit ludicrous.
One goal of art is to create a work that "provokes an authentic emotional or intellectual response that disrupts complacency". The legal and political response to these texts clearly demonstrate this artist achieved this goal.
I'm sure a deep lesson was learned from Shrek's penis and buddy was really inspired to act. You're ignoring the word "serious" in there. Again if Shrek's penis clears the bar for you then I want to know what doesn't clear your bar.
One could buy a copy of Hustler, rip out a page, mail it to someone, and then say that the upset itself meets that standard.
I didn't say it was good art, but I will say I don't want people to be *jailed* for bad art. As stated in OP, there's a high legal bar for "harassment" and that's not a bad thing because putting people in *jail* is a pretty big deal.
You and I can agree that Byrnes' behavior is obnoxious, childish, and offensive. Senator Cirino had several other, better options to deal with the situation.
I thoroughly enjoyed this piece!
"No Shrektile Dysfunction there."
"What does the First Amendment say? About Shrek’s schlong specifically? Nothing, surprisingly."
Kudos to the author(s) for injecting a bit of humor.
With any luck at all, this will have the Streisand effect. Looks like the plaintiff isn't all that bright.
First off the picture of Shrek's penis is obviously sent because it's intended to be unpleasant and disgusting. Second, I don't think it's as difficult as you make it out to be to conclude that Shrek's erect penis is lacking in serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. If Shrek's erect penis cannot be said to be lacking in these respects then I'm not sure what does.
Trying to stake out a free speech claim here is a bit ludicrous.
One goal of art is to create a work that "provokes an authentic emotional or intellectual response that disrupts complacency". The legal and political response to these texts clearly demonstrate this artist achieved this goal.
I'm sure a deep lesson was learned from Shrek's penis and buddy was really inspired to act. You're ignoring the word "serious" in there. Again if Shrek's penis clears the bar for you then I want to know what doesn't clear your bar.
One could buy a copy of Hustler, rip out a page, mail it to someone, and then say that the upset itself meets that standard.
I didn't say it was good art, but I will say I don't want people to be *jailed* for bad art. As stated in OP, there's a high legal bar for "harassment" and that's not a bad thing because putting people in *jail* is a pretty big deal.
You and I can agree that Byrnes' behavior is obnoxious, childish, and offensive. Senator Cirino had several other, better options to deal with the situation.
So ... if something is "unpleasant and disgusting", it should be illegal to send to someone?