Sadly, there are few expectations in public.

I get it and find various things unpleasant myself, but the public spaces are public. And that had to mean something or we all lose.

We all have options too.

Don't look, travel a different route, move, etc...

If that is the case I should be allowed to remix it, repaint and re-sculpt it into something better, it is a public space and we have options after all?

Would you object to the same being done to you in a public space?

You see, I am not a thing/object so apples/oranges.

Nope.

You can do you, on your public facing property same and they do them.

Now, true street art works as you say and many call that graffiti.

Well in that case, I'm sure I can depend on some anonymous friendly neighborhood vandals to deal with these crimes against taste and art.

The thing with graffiti is it is not protected, if someone makes an awful piece someone can just go paint over it unlike this tasteless man that is forcing his bad taste upon the world with no way to "respond".

Freedom is scary. We all must deal with it.

Fact is, that art is as offensive as you think it is. True for everyone.

Responding with crime is profoundly selfish.

Forcing people to look at very large ugly corporate statues because you have bad taste and too much money is profoundly selfish.

Like I said, freedom is scary. Can't hardly count the number of people who say they are all about free expression, until it is something they don't like.

Factor all those dislikes in, and call those people selfish and if we were to actually entertain that (badly) broken reasoning, the resulting set of permissible expression would likely be more constrained than it currently is in regions of the world controlled by fundemental religious theocrats.

And the vast majority of those people would easily say the people living under fundamentalism deserve better!

That's bat shit. Full on, hot, fresh bat shit cray, cray.

I get it. You just don't like the art. Join the club. We all see stuff every day we don't like. And someone here mentioned the cool Flintstone house in California. That is totally relevant!

You see, people, who appear to align well with the opinion you have put here, have tried repeatedly to have it taken down. And their reason was the same as the one you are putting here; namely, they just don't like it and somehow that must mean the world needs to respond and GET RID OF THAT SHIT because?

[ insert it here ]

And they failed.

As they should!

We have a First Amendment for good reason.

This discussion is the reason.

Heck, you basically said crime for hire was an acceptable response! Good grief!

And then you try and call selfish somehow? You flat out lost me.

Seems like a botch to me, like the kind of botch others point to and proclaim their basic joy that they were not the one who botched it that badly.

No Joke!

How would it hurt you? The American Heritage Dictionary gives three definitions of hurt:

> 1. To cause physical damage or pain to (an individual or a body part); injure.

> 2. To experience injury or pain to or in (an individual or a body part).

> 3. To cause mental or emotional suffering to; distress.

Does looking at them cause you mental or emotional suffering?

What if I said that it caused me the same mental or emotional suffering anytime anybody wore a tshirt? Would you also say people should only wear tshirts inside?

7 Billion people wearing t-shirts vs 2 statues, not the same, sorry. There are laws for offensive shirts though so yes, specific t-shirts can cause emotional suffering and could land the person wearing it in a lot of trouble based on hate speech and obscenity laws.

Do you think these statues are hate speech or obscenity?