Thank you once again for bringing attention to how the registry has somewhat morphed into a Kristallnacht movement.
A few days ago when I read about Bruce Habowski’s artwork being removed, I could not help but reflect upon another discriminatory time when Robert Mapplethorpe’s or Patrick Angus artwork was removed because Jesse Helms found no artistic value and deemed it criminal or obscene. Both artists did nothing criminally wrong but were labeled criminals because of being homosexual. Anyone that supported Mapplethorpe’s exhibit was considered culprits or guilty by association. The previous anti-gay and mischaracterization of homosexuality by politicians past and present has a new agenda at hand. That agenda is to identify anyone being registered as a threat to the overall public safety – even if there are no facts to support it. That assessment is a profound reflection of how the Nazi’s once identified Jewish citizens and sympathizers to label them as deviants. Today, society is rushing judgment to fill the registry with just about anything it can justify or psychologically include even if it causes harm to the innocent or onlookers.
What is next in the nonsensical quest to purge registered offenders and the accused from society? Are we to stop listening or remove memorabilia to Elvis Presley, Jerry Lee Lewis, Loretta Lynn, Marilyn Monroe, or Milla Jovovich because they were involved with a minor? Those that argue for a strictly moral sense are typically the same groups or individuals with no apathy for the law or moral standard. It is dangerous and contempt for primary rationale and safety.
Perhaps the registry is a form of the Kristallnacht to American society. Ridding of those affected by the registry seems more of a constructive effort to implement a Final Solution style purge if offenders cannot live in tents, near schools, churches, daycare, museums, parks, and so forth. Perhaps America is the catalyst providing an internationally based script in violating fundamental Human Rights and its impact on families and freedoms. Anyone should have the privilege of choice and the inalienable right to view art, science, or other factors deemed as a distinction to look beyond the contextual or judgment value. If art or humanity cannot be equally accessible, then there is an argument that art has a prepossessed opinion which places all of the art community in peril because freedoms are predetermined. That is not freedom and violates the freedom of choice and immunity for me to decide what has artistic value.