First: please refrain from commenting on the religious implications of this story, in this thread, as it's not the topic I'm adressing with this post.
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/na...1f4792&k=77744
Question: What is more important? The rights of an individual, or the comfort of the majority?
I believe that the rights of the individual are important, however, when "freedom of expression" becomes a destructive force in society, good taste should prevail.
Now, as an adult, I have no problem with the sculpture. This guy paid for the materials and put it up on private land.
As an adult, I can understand his message.
However, I sure wouldn't want my kid to see on his way to school. I belive it would be, understandably, traumatic to a child under ~6 to see something like this.
Does freedom of expression give this guy the right to inflict this type of trauma upon kids?
Say the only way for your kids to not see this thing was if you were to drive them to school (taking a different route) everyday and pick them up. Does this guy's "freedom of expression" give him the right to force parents to either change their entire routine, and that of their children, or allow their children to be subjected to subject matter that is far too mature for them?
I'm prone to side with the "comfort of the majority" on this issue, however, where do you draw the line?
How do we establish some sort of perameter to distinguish whether something is actually damaging, or the person complaining is just being a whiney asshole?
How can something as relative as "good taste" be interpreted on anything other than a case by case basis? And if that's how it's to be interpreted, who's qualified to be the ambassador of good taste?
Kris