Condensed, compressed and condescended

Do not make the devils bargain. Fox News is the strongest argument in favor of the right of children to mercifully euthanize demented parents. via Facebook
via IFTTT

Wtf, Metrocast!? It’s been nearly 10 fucking hours, and still no internet, and no ETA on the work completion.

What the ever loving fuck? via Facebook
via IFTTT

via Facebook
via IFTTT

‘ “You shouldn’t be putting stuff like that on government property,” said Michael Poulin of Rochester when asked about a Black Lives Matter mural that popped up down the road from his house.” ‘

On the contrary, that’s exactly where it belongs. Government does not exist as a person or thing exists, but as a legal fiction in service of the public for the provision of public goods. A fiction is a form of communication. Anything said to be owned by a form of communication must also thereby be itself a form of communication. Moreover, insofar as government can be said to have property rights, all such property is de facto held in trust for the public: that is to say it is a communication about the common interests and needs of society.

The medium, in this case, clearly being the message: to wit, an artistically-expressed political communication on ‘goverment property’ by a party expressing their exclusion from the benefit of other forms of public good provided by said government: in this case, in uneven application of police violence against diverse demographic segments of the public, which under the law comprises all members thereof. As we can assert that the artist-communicator is a member of the public, we should likewise view the medium on which he or she chose to express that communication as a conscious choice: It is the address on the envelope, and necessary to ensure that the communication is delivered.

In effect, what this artist’s work represents is a communication about a violation of the public trust, issued as a directed communication to the segment of the public — government — whom the artist percieves as in need on intruction on better serving the public good. Such communication is explicitly protected under the First Amnendment: It is political speech in on property held and reserved for the public good, and it is a communication made in service of the public good.

It is not even arguable that such a communication of protest is not protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution without rendering the First Amendment utterly impotent. via Facebook
via IFTTT