Activists ticketed for putting Snowden bust on NYC monument

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP

By JENNIFER PELTZ

NEW YORK (AP) — Two activists who put a bust of Edward Snowden on a Revolutionary War memorial were ticketed and got their confiscated sculpture back Wednesday, saying they felt the episode had sparked conversation about freedom.

Jeff Greenspan and Andrew Tider had tried to stay anonymous after the 4-foot-tall, 100-pound likeness of the exiled National Security Agency secret-leaker briefly appeared last month on a monument in a Brooklyn park.

But after the summonses made their names public record, they told The Associated Press they'd spent a year planning their unauthorized artistic statement, enlisted a sculptor to craft it and aimed to place Snowden's disclosures of government surveillance in the context of revolutionary values of liberty.

"The ideal that Snowden seemed to be fighting for with his actions seemed to be in line with the ideals the revolutionaries, who might also have been called traitors, were fighting for," Tider said by phone.

FULL story at link.



FILE - This April 6, 2015, file photo provided by ANIMALNewYork shows a bust of the former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden which was snuck overnight into Brooklyn's Fort Greene Park, in New York. Attorney Ronald Kuby, the lawyer for the mystery artists who affixed the bust of Edward Snowden to the New York park's war monument, says they've been ticketed but not criminally charged. Kuby says the three got summonses for being in a park after hours, a non-criminal violation. (Aymann Ismail/ANIMALNewYork via AP, File)

Read more: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/10820a79781c43658027f16cf469edb1/artists-who-put-ed-snowden-bust-nyc-monument-are-ticketed

[MADem]

1. Their mistake was co-opting an existing memorial to war dead.

People don't realize that just because THEY don't have a personal connection to a memorial, it doesn't mean that someone else feels the same way. If you grew up watching your granny or great-granny cry over the loss of her husband or son(s) in the war, it has a personal effect.

Using a memorial that honors the dead to make political commentary might be seen by some as clueless and insensitive.

They would have been better off making an entirely different, separate statue, and going to the trouble of clearing a spot, getting a plinth, putting in plantings, and making it look like it was a city project. Had they done that, it probably would have taken longer for anyone to even notice the thing.

[JDPriestly]

4. I believe the park memorial commemorates those who fought in the American Revolution.

The neighborhood is named after an American Revolutionary War era fort that was built in 1776 under the supervision of General Nathanael Greene of Rhode Island.[2] General Greene aided General George Washington during the Battle of Long Island in 1776. Fort Greene Park, originally called "Washington Park" and Brooklyn's first, is also derived from General Greene's name and from the neighborhood. In 1864, Fort Greene Park was redesigned by Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux; the park notably includes the Prison Ship Martyrs' Monument and crypt, which honors some 11,500 patriots who died aboard British prison ships during the American Revolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Greene,_Brooklyn

More on the subject:

http://www.nycgovparks.org/parks/fort-greene-park/monuments/1222


I don't think very many grandmothers who survived the American Revolution are alive today. And I for one who have ancestors who fought in that Revolution appreciate Snowden's efforts to protect our Bill of Rights.

.

[MADem]

5. I thought it was WW1, but you are right, it was a Revolutionary War monument.

It doesn't really matter, though--some people have a visceral reaction of great offense when a memorial to war dead is defaced. If you have a loved one who died in any war and their remains were not recovered, war memorials--no matter what war they memorialize--are regarded as the next best thing to a gravesite. And even if you don't think that kind of thing matters, it matters to enough people that this bad idea, in place for literally minutes, STILL went over like a lead balloon.

I know they used all sorts of "special" glue and so forth to not damage the original, but it doesn't matter.

It's not quite as bad as putting a smiley face on the Tomb of the Unknown Servicemember, but it's just ... rude.

Certainly tone deaf.

They didn't get the reaction they were hoping for, that's for sure. It's what happens when people get tunnel vision.


Had they done it as I suggested, not co-opting anything, just quietly scoping out a less traveled area of a public park and putting up a statue that had the appearance of always being there, and didn't look like something out of Mother Russia (that was another problem with the thing), it might have gotten a better reception.

[JDPriestly]

6. As you said:

"some people have a visceral reaction of great offense when a memorial to war dead is defaced." and some, like me who has ancestors that fought in the Revolutionary War are delighted when someone in our era takes the lesson of that Revolution to heart and defends our rights especially the Fourth Amendment and our trial and property rights - Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Amendments.

[MADem]

7. Don't make the mistake of believing that your "Doesn't bother me" has more weight than the

"How dare they!! That's a fucking DISGRACE!" crowd's POV. It doesn't matter if your ancestor died and the defacement of his memorial (assuming he died in a prison ship, or whatever and was part of the group being honored by that monument) doesn't bother you--someone who immigrated more recently who lost a couple of kids in Vietnam or the Latest Fiasco just might be appalled at the generic disrespect--and people would listen to, and care about, their opinion more than they would yours. Why? You're feeling NO pain--and the act of defacing the monument pains those others. People are sensitive to those in pain and most don't appreciate it when people go out of their way to use people who haven't given their permission to be associated with a cause, particularly when the people being co-opted are dead and can't talk back.

It's just how most of us are wired. That's why this very meticulous project--and a lot of work went into it--was panned. It was just so self-serving and self-referencing. They might as well have put a big middle finger up there for all it mattered.

The people who dreamed up this bone-headed idea could have found their delight elsewhere--they didn't have to trash a war memorial--even temporarily--to give you your dose of joy. They could have done it in a way that didn't step on anyone else's toes. Might have taken a bit more creativity, or work, though.

When people do stuff on the backs of others, in this case, war dead, it never ends well.

[candelista]

10. "Defacement"?

Spraying graffiti would be a defacement. This is a very nice bust, making a political statement about Snowden's heroic role in exposing government and corporate attacks on our right to privacy. Your irrational loathing for Snowden (probably for partisan political reasons) is what makes you call it a "defacement."

[MADem]

14. Why can't you discuss a topic without resorting to personal insult?

Your irrational loathing for Snowden (probably for partisan political reasons) is what makes you call it a "defacement."

No--when someone glues something on top of something else, and changes the meaning of it, that's defacement. A moustache on the Mona Lisa. Mickey Mouse ears on a statue of Paul Revere. Slapping the bust of a hacker on a memorial for war dead. Just because the defacement was mitigated by a non-permanent glue doesn't make it any less of a defacement. Spray paint can be removed, too--and it's also a defacement.

Your inability to engage in discussion without being rude, personally insulting and childish is noted. I don't really see a point in engaging with you further, since your "go to" tactic is to get shitty instead of conversing. I could call that "irrational" and "partisan" but why stoop to your level?

You have one of those REAL nice days, now.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

21. It's no more defacement than someone sticking a flyer on a building.

Both can be easily removed without harm. I applaud their considerations in NOT deffacing the memorial. They (and the sculptor) did a great job!

And.... you say hacker, I say whistleblower. Seems we have differing opinions of Snowden, which may be why you seem so upset over such a small thing.

[MADem]

22. That's defacement too.

Someone has to stop doing their regular taxpayer-funded job to "easily remove" the thing.

Why do people think that actions have no consequences?

I think the idea was stupid and lame, and I'm not alone. They easily could have made the point without the stupid encroachment. As it was, the only reason that the story got any play is because someone "alerted the media." The thing was taken down so quickly that probably only dozens -- if that -- saw it in situ. And there's not going to be any big trial, either--the people who did the deed got tickets. Aww--no opportunity to "fight the power," there, either.

It is possible to be more than one thing, you know. One doesn't obviate the other. And as for "upset," who's the one who jumped into this conversation to "explain" rather anxiously to me what your incorrect definition of the term "deffacing" (SIC) is all about? Hmmm?

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

23. I've noticed you are very rude to people.

I say no harm, no foul. You want them in prison or something, I'm not sure.

We can agree to disagree, I hope.

[Sgt Preston]

26. +1. I've noticed this too.

People are often irritable because they're unhappy. If that's the reason, I hope he/she feels better soon.

[MADem]

33. I've noticed precisely that about you. Gee, isn't that interesting?

I don't resort to childish name calling or characterizing --I suggest you try that on for size. I tell the truth and some think it's hell, to paraphrase Truman.

"You want them in prison or something..." is a great example, put forth by you, that illustrates precisely why I tire of these conversations. I don't know how many times I've said in this very thread they have a right to protest, but their method of protest was a) Stupid and b) A defacement of a public monument. Apparently, you either missed that, or you felt that making an untrue point about me was more important than reading the thread to actually determine how I felt about this issue.

I never once said--or even inferred--that I wanted them in jail. I wouldn't be surprised if THEY wanted to do an "activist's march" to lockup, but they were denied that breast-beating victim-drama....instead they got "tickets." Awwwww. Hurrah for Ron Kuby, On The Case!

The entire evolution had FAIL written all over it.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

37. You are really full of yourself - good bye.

[MADem]

39. Ah, yes, ANOTHER characterization of me--you're full of them, aren't you!!!

Take a good look in that mirror on your way out of the conversation, now!
Cheerio!

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

41. Apparently you NEVER look in a mirror!

[MADem]

42. I see clearly and I most certainly see you for just what you are. nt

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

43. Believe me - DITTO!!

[JDPriestly]

17. But you see, they put up that statue in honor of my ancestors who fought for the rights

that are listed in the Bill of Rights, and Snowden is a defender of that Bill of Rights just as the people who fought in WWII, for example, fought for freedom and the right of self-determination. That's why I think that while some people may have been offended it's kind of a wash, because the sentiments of a lot of well informed people who have just as much of a connection to the memorial to the Revolutionary War as the parents of a Viet Nam vet might have to a Viet Nam memorial would counterbalance that sentiment that the parents of veterans of more recent wars might have.

[MADem]

27. And you think the fact that you feel "more American" than some of us

(as you rest on the laurels of an ancestor you never knew) obviates OUR rights to enjoy publicly funded memorials without crap glued to them? America isn't all about the Daughters of the American Revolution or the Sons of Liberty--ask Marian Anderson about that.

And you think it's your RIGHT to deface monuments? And it's your right to require that city workers be called from their regular duties to repair and restore monuments covered in glue after removing the item affixed to it? Why didn't they just spray paint "FREE SNOWDEN" on the Vietnam War Memorial, then?

Not sure what you're saying here. Not feeling it one bit, though.

My objection, FWIW, is not with regard to the ACT of protest. It's the manner and location that I find pompous and stupid. The money/time expended in scraping the glue off that statue and removing the stupid head from it could have been spent filling a few potholes, and maybe sparing a citizen a broken axle.


There are smart ways to protest, and there are stupid, over-thought-out, "hubris laden" ways to protest. This was the latter.

[JDPriestly]

45. I'm not putting up any statues, but I am telling you that some people may disagree with the

act of putting up the statue and some others, like me, might think it is great.

Putting up a statue is an act of free expression, an act of free speech. The city is entitled to take it down if they believe that the majority of citizens doesn't want it up, but they have to acknowledge that some will disagree, perhaps a minority, but the rights of the minority are also to be respected. Minorities become majorities. That's how democracy works.

I am pointing out that we are entitled to our opinions on this statue. I am pointing out that I like it and that I am sure that some others agree with me. The surveillance state and the general warrants are in my opinion, a violation of our human rights. Many agree with me.

[MADem]

46. No, it's not. By that measure, that idiot encroaching on federal land with his livestock

is engaging in his right to "free expression," "protest" and "free speech." Because, ya know, some people think what he's doing is "great" and all.

Let's go glue a Snowden head on the Lincoln Memorial, and see how that goes over? Hey, "free speech!!"

No one said you weren't entitled to your own opinion, you're just not entitled to your own facts.

[Beauregard]

58. He didn't say that!

Where are you getting that? What a strange interpretation!

[Blue_Tires]

50. What's wrong with these fanatics just putting their idol on their own fucking property?

Oh, right -- Then they don't get to whore for publicity and play the role of Jesus on the cross since the big bad gummitt is supposedly "infringing" their 1A rights

This is no fucking different that some asshole putting the Ten Commandments there, or a bust of Eli Manning

[Hoppy]

9. First of all, they wanted people to notice the thing.

Its job was to get attention to the efforts and plight of Snowden. It certainly got your attention.

[MADem]

12. Well, putting it on top of an existing memorial wasn't the smart way to do that.

It only "certainly got" my attention because it was discovered in hours and IMMEDIATELY taken down, and people posted the story HERE. It "certainly got" my attention because their choice of monument to deface was a dumbass place to put their little statue. It made me think "Gee, what a rude and tone-deaf thing to do," not "Wow, now I have an awareness that I never had before. Onward, Christian Snowdens!!!!"

Like I said, you do something on the backs of others, it's not cool. Expect pushback. When you're grafting your cause onto a memorial for people who died in war, who can't pipe up and say "Gee, I agree with your defacing of that monument" it's unfeeling--almost selfish, IMO.

They could have gone to a little more trouble and crafted their own monument, made it look like part of the landscape, gone to the effort of making it look like it had been in situ for awhile, instead of gluing their crap over the work of another. That said, they aren't getting chained and beaten for their act--they got ticketed. It's all a big "meh" at the end of the day.

[Larry Engels]

16. A few minutes ago, you didn't even know what the existing memorial was for.

What pulled your leash? And why are you delivering personal attacks against the people who disagree with you?

[MADem]

29. Hello, who are you? I don't know you at all.

I've participated in discussions about this alteration when it was first taken down. You can do a search and see. If you knew me and followed this story here yourself, you might know that.

Just because I was unclear regarding the war to which the monument was dedicated doesn't mean I didn't have an awareness of the story. Of course, if you read the thread contextually, instead of trying to play a rude "gotcha" game, you'd have realized that.

But gee, thanks for that input!

You might want to do some work and find out what a personal attack is, before you carry on. Suggesting that I am on a LEASH is a personal attack--but it takes something called SELF AWARENESS to see yourself, and apparently you lack a mirror.

Have a nice day, now.

[Larry Engels]

35. Who am I?

I'm the guy who's criticizing some your posts when I think you're off track.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

38. Him/Her gaskets are blowing. It's best to leave her be fo the rest of the day at least.

[Beauregard]

53. +1. It takes a while for such a hurricane to unwind!

[MADem]

40. You're apparently the guy who didn't bother to read them, as well! nt

[Beauregard]

54. Are you supposed to know everybody on here?

Your comments sure are nasty! But I'm just a newbie, so I haven't seen much. I hope you feel better soon!

[MADem]

57. I don't know you either.

Isn't that interesting how a few people can sound so alike in one thread!

[Beauregard]

59. Well, Howdy!

Did you ever think that a lot of people might be offended by your posts? Maybe that's why they "sound alike."

[MADem]

60. Oh, I think you can come up with another reason ... nt

[Larry Engels]

61. Paranoia strikes deep/Into your heart it will creep!

--Buffalo Springfield.

[GreatGazoo]

44. There is an old saying -- "they don't erect statues of critics"

People fought the American Revolution for the 4th Amendment, among other things.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[MADem]

47. Actually, that's just so NOT true, that saying!!!

Every single one of our Founding Fathers (and Mothers, though they get fewer statues) was a "critic" of the first order--to the point of taking the colonies to war to make their criticism entirely clear!

They erect statues of winners, generally. Statues of losers (Saddam Hussein, Shah of Iran, Stalin, e.g.) tend to get pulled down.

Of course, this wasn't a statue. It was a guerrilla art project, at best.

[Beauregard]

55. Strange argument.

The Founding Fathers weren't "critics." They were revolutionists. Big difference.

[TerrapinFlyer]

2. The act was in poor taste.

You can't just setup your own statues on public land.

[candelista]

11. Does "taste" trump all other considerations?

Including the right of freedom of expression? Not according to me.

[MADem]

13. So, howzabout we all go deface the Lincoln Memorial, then? Sound like fun?

[Larry Engels]

15. What has putting up a nice bust got to do with "defacement"?

I suggest you look up the word "deface."

[TerrapinFlyer]

18. They put it on top of an existing monument

Don't you think the original monument deserves to stay the way it was designed?

Do you realize where they placed the bust? They didn't just place it in the ground.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

24. Do you really think they expected it to be permanent?

The original monument is fine, it was all along. All they had to do is remove the statue, and viola!, an UN-defaced monument.

[MADem]

31. I think you're the one who needs to do that, since plainly you don't know.

Welcome to DU. I invite your attention to the TOS. Enjoy your time here.

[Larry Engels]

36. Thanks for your kind words.

And your cute end line, too. Instead of innuendo, why don't you do something about it?

[MADem]

48. You are most welcome. There's no "innuendo" in my post at all.

I think it's a good thing for people to see you in all your glory, and make their own judgments.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

[Sgt Preston]

49. +1. nt

[Larry Engels]

52. That's fine with me. Other people have remarked on your negativity.

So you have exposed yourself for who you are, as well.

[Beauregard]

56. +1. nt.

[TerrapinFlyer]

19. "freedom of expression"

Hey, I will be over to your house tomorrow, I have a statue I want to place in your living room. Yeah.. it's my freedom of expression, right?

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

25. Are you going to break and enter to do it?

That's against the law. They were on PUBLIC property.

[geek tragedy]

20. Converting a public memorial into a creepy

shrine is not a first amendment right.

[Sgt Preston]

28. "Creepy" is your term, Geek-boy.

It doesn't strike me as "creepy." It's really well done, and well deserved. I hope it finds a nice home in some highly visible public place.

[geek tragedy]

30. Welcome to DU.

[Sgt Preston]

32. A thousand "thank-you"s!

Really, it's an honor.

[Downwinder]

3. Is the laser projection still operating?

[Sgt Preston]

8. NYC should put it in Central Park.

Snowden performed a great public service. BTW I like the bust. The sculptor did a fine job.

[Malraiders]

34. Ha - i was right

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6511199

[Blue_Tires]

51. Nope, no hero worship here...