That's the message you think he got. Judging from the attitude of the "family friend" the message I think he got was "break the law and get your 15 minutes of fame".

 

I didn't see anything to that effect in the article :dunno: He also never broke the law :thinking:

But that may very well be true :chuckles:

 

I think he broke the law but then any kind of art is so subjective. It's only cut and dried when Jodie Foster gets a letter saying "i'll kill the president for you". I just think this wouldn't have been such a big hoo-ha if the family friend wasn't spouting off trying to be an attention whore.

 

i think it's more along the lines of "be questionable and expect to be questioned":dunno:

 

this is turning into a regular Rocky and Bullwinkle episode..complete with sneaky Russians.

 

there is nothing illegal about artistic protest. He could have painted a big sign that said "fawk Bush," "Bush is a so-and-so," etc, and it still would have been legal. If he had been like that wierdo and actually threatened violenc (i.e. "I'm gonna ____ Bush," then it would have been illegal.

 

watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat

 

i think portraying someones head on a stick conveys that message effectively

 

fair enough...

oh yeah, and since nobody has posted it up yet in this thread, I might as well be the first :db:

 

once again, we're talking about an interpretation of art that we have not seen. The article doesn't make clear whether the picture depicted the president decapitated or whether is was an image of his head as on a sign post, or anything else.