And so we find this which has put off a lot of people. (and there is a lot more potentially offensive material at the link including some not safe for work). The question has arisin as to whether it is art or racist. It is a dumb question since Art can be racist and still be art. While there are people quick to applaud the removal of the art and arrest of the artist, I would remind them that at some point something they agree with may be deteremined to be offensive to some other group at which time they too could find themselves on the receiving end of state censorship.
I recall the artwork. "Your Mommas Last Supper" was created. A lot of people were pissed off about that. It may be Anti-Christian or Anti-Catholic, but it was still art.
Perhaps we can recall the Cross put in urine. Anti-Christian, Most likely. Art? Definitely.
Oh and lets not forget the Cartoons of Mohammed.
To be honest I thought that the exhibit as far as I've seen it is intellectually stimulating. Particularly the Nappy Headed Hos and Audacity of Black Hope images.
The Just Passing and Passed are, to me, interesting pieces in and of themselves.
The point of having a free speech society in which all speech that does not directly threaten the welfare of the public such as shouting fire in a crowded auditorium, is that you protect the speech you may disagree with because by doing so you protect your own speech. It seems that way too many people have forgotten this little point.
