Readers,

I have been following the posts on the Met protest and the posts which led
up to them which have clearly laid out the conflict as it progressed.  I
think the tacticts being described (throwing people to the ground etc..) are
frightening to say the least.  They are also very similar to those used at
union rallies/picket lines to bait protesters into defending themselves
("attacking" so to speak the police).

Despite my feelings about police actions there is one thing that gnaws at me
about this whole issue.  I am no legal scholar and I understand that there
is a court ruling stating that the artists have protection for the sale
of free-speech protected material.  As a citizen I have to say I may
disagree with the court.  It seems to me that there should be some type of
distinction between expressions protected as free speech and the sale of
those expressions whatever form they take.  Isn't one commerce and the other
free speech?

More than likely my perception is based in part in having heard over time
what I consider to be one too many defence of free speech by TV people,
newspaper people etc... who basically represent corporations who make
profits by selling the "news" to us.  This only dilutes the entire idea
of free speech.

I would be very interested in your thoughts on the many confusing questions
swirling around between my ears.  Where does Free Speech stop and making a
buck start if at all?

Since this is a museum list after all I guess we should focus on the subject
at hand - the art protest situation in NYC.

Tom Heard