Mediaboss Marketing

Our own Congressman Bill Huizenga advocated for censorship ("Huizenga speaks out against controversial artwork," Sentinel, Jan. 14). He directly attacked the First Amendment protections of Congressman William Lacy Clay Jr., D-Mo, and high school student David Pulphus.

Huizenga took offense to a painting by Pulphus that had won an art contest and was hung among other art contest winners in the hall between the Capitol and House office buildings.

The painting depicts a street protest in Ferguson, Mo., where police officers' heads are depicted as animals. It is a good painting artistically, so it is clear to see how it won the contest. The subject is controversial, but isnt that the point of art? There was injustice in Ferguson. There have been many shootings of unarmed African-Americans by police officers in this country. Some of these have been shown to be an excessive use of deadly force. The Department of Justice recently concluded an investigation of the Chicago Police Department where they cited them for unconstitutionally engag(ing) in a pattern of excessive force for years.

As a result African-Americans have felt that their right of equal protection under the law has been infringed. Pulphus and Congressman Clay have a constitutionally protected right to express this by the creation and display of this piece of art.

I personally would not have created the painting. I would not have displayed it for the reason that there is such a huge amount of tension between police and the citizens they are trying to protect. I would favor starting a dialogue between police and community leaders. I work in an environment where I interact with many police officers on a daily basis, and I find most of them to be respectful people who are doing a difficult job to the best of their abilities. However, whatever I would or would not create or display should not matter. That is why we have a First Amendment.

Huizenga interjected his thoughts by sending a letter to Congressman Clay asking him to remove the painting. If anyone can argue that this is not censorship, please let me know. Huizenga should immediately apologize to Pulphus and Congressman Clay, present an argument about why this is not censorship, or admit that it is. Anything else would be cowardly.

Robert Davidson

Spring Lake

View post:
Letter: Huizenga advocates for censorship - The Daily Telegram