Bill Donohue Bathing in Privilege
The latest twist in Bill Donohue’s Gordian panties is the fact that he was barred from a gallery in New York City that was exhibiting Andres Serrano’s Piss Christ:
I then asked them if I could enter, and they said no, without explanation. At that point I turned to the crowd behind me explaining that my First Amendment rights were being censored by the same people who were proudly displaying Serrano’s crucifix in a jar of urine.
Now he’s posted a video of the incident:
http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/Cd7h80UUNHg
At around 1:10, he says,
I was just officially denied the opportunity by these people— Censoring my freedom of speech, my First Amendment right. They took this art and they’re going to show it here. […] My problem is with the phonies who run the Edward Tyler Nahem art museum by trying to censor us.
Oh, Jesus tapdancing Christ in a jar of urine. I’ve seen BillDo throw some riduculous tantrums, but this is a contender for Privileged Whine of the Year.
The very fact that he’s airing his beefs on the Internet to anyone who gives a crap is proof that he’s not being censored. But that’s not good enough for him. He imagines that he has not only a right to speak, but a right to be listened to. He’s upset not because he can’t say what he wants, but because he can’t say it where and how he wants it. Apparently in BillDo’s head, it is the gallery’s responsibility to provide him with a platform to air his grievances. Because he’s getting offended on God’s behalf, apparently.
If there’s a more perfect examplar of religious privilege, I have yet to see it.
I’m confused. Was BillDo intending to do some sort of public/media event inside the museum? Then he should have got permission from them (which they’re not obliged to give, and since he managed to hold an event outside already, it’s hardly a free-speech issue). Or was he just going to quietly view the work as a private citizen? Then it may be assholish on the musuem’s part to bar him — but also hardly a free-speech issue.
Does anything this guy say ever make sense?
Yeah, that’s why I called it a matter of privilege: he’s offended at the photo, which is well within his rights, and he wants to talk about it which he’s also free to do. The gallery is, as far as I know, a private entity, and free to bar potentially-disruptive visitors.
But apparently what Bill is upset about is that the gallery wouldn’t provide him with a soapbox to express his outrage.
By the same token, I could say that I’m offended by depictions of torture and execution, and get mad at the local Catholic diocese for not allowing me to just waltz in to any cathedral and start ranting about the crucifix.
He’s timed this perfectly. The government wets their panties over a three-minute excerpt of a video on YouTube with less than 2000 hits before our ambassador is tortured, sodomized and murdered, apologizing and claiming to be firmly on the side of not insulting religious faiths and then this piece of crap shows up again as a feature in yet another exhibit.
He’s showing up the complete hypocrisy of the chattering class. Yay for him.
Sodomized? Apologizing? I take it you get your news from the Moonie Times because Fox News is too far to the left, am I right?
You may, by the way, want to read the corrections and updates on this article.