Speaker Paul Ryan recently appeared on the Mike Gallagher radio program, where he discussed a controversial contest winning painting, which depicts cops as pigs, and explained why it violates contest rules and should be removed.

The painting, which is currently on display in the Capitol Building, features cops as pigs, shooting at unarmed citizens. It was inspired by the events in Ferguson, Missouri.

California Rep. Duncan Hunter was able to remove the painting at one paint.

“This false narrative portrays law enforcement professionals as posing a danger to the very communities we serve. That is untrue and this ‘art’ reinforces this false narrative and is disrespectful on so many levels,” Rep. Hunter said.

However, the painting was promptly returned shortly after the removal, sparking strong emotions on both sides.

Missouri Democratic Rep. Lacy Clay has strongly supported the painting and argues that removing it is a violation of free speech.

“The Speaker and his Republican colleagues are attempting to suppress free speech with their own brand of retroactive, vigilante censorship against my constituent.”

Despite Rep. Clay’s opinion, the Capitol architect is currently reviewing the rules of the annual Congressional art competition to see if the painting is in violation.

Speaker Ryan specifically called attention to this line of rules which states that entries cannot contain:

“Subjects of contemporary political controversy or a sensationalistic or gruesome nature.”

At this point, it seems that the painting will be making many trips in and out of the Capitol Building until further notice.

Sources:

The Daily Caller

  • Renaissance_nerd

    It is censorship plain and simple. I don’t care if i agree or disagree with the message of the painting I am against censorship in any form.

    • AmericanGirl

      It has nothing to do with censorship, agreeing or disagreeing… it is based completely on a LIE! That is the point! Not saying it cannot exist… but it has no place where it is!

    • tom_quantum

      All contests have rules. This painting certainly violates them.

    • Danny Martin

      You have the right to paint whatever you want. That doesn’t mean you get to hang it in a building paid for by everyone’s tax dollars.

      • Renaissance_nerd

        why not? as far as i know that only thing banned from that is if it’s religious in nature, which this is not.

        • brian tokarski

          Well it seems you must not know much by the looks of it

        • ChainedPhantom .

          You’re sure? Care to look into the confederate flags that were forced to be taken down last year in several southern states?

          • Renaissance_nerd

            Because the confederate flag is a standard of a defeated nation and has no business in a government building, big difference.

        • Joe Schmoe

          Censorship doesn’t mean not providing a forum. Otherwise we could be forced to view or listen to all viewpoints in our own space

    • brian tokarski

      So by your logic, you would support Nazi paintings or KKK paintings with obvious depictions of hate on them hung in that building? You’re an idiot.

      • Renaissance_nerd

        In the freest nation on earth art no matter how distasteful should not be censored.

        • brian tokarski

          freest eh? Lmao

          • Joe Schmoe

            Close to it

        • brian tokarski

          in a government building in which represents ALL the people, it should be kept neutral. No one said anything about free speech, but where do we cross the line? You really need to think bout this then you really shouldn’t be answering the dudes question…smh

          You can have free speech, but it doesn’t mean that everyone has to accept what you said. And that is why it won’t be hung. The many outweigh the needs of the few. Learn it. Just don’t learn it where ever it is you learned about “the freest nation” lmao

  • Sailing J

    I’m sure the Black Caucus would readily defend a contest winning painting depicting black people as monkeys swinging from trees.

    Painting people as animals is meant to demean and show them as less than human. Great leadership from the black community. And they wonder why nobody cares about their cause.

    • Joe Schmoe

      Those amoral scumbags in the CBC, the “Conscience” (sic) of America, would support jailing people who insult black people

  • bkight13

    OK …put the Confederate Flag back up everywhere and the Ten Commandments while you’re at it

    • ChainedPhantom .

      Damn straight, sir. They don’t get it both ways, either NOTHING goes up under “freedom of speech’, or EVERYTHING goes up under freedom of speech.

  • Myob Nosy

    Set it on fire.

  • brian tokarski

    I guess one could argue that if there was a painting of the KKK lynching someone would consititute free speech and that the black caucus would fight tooth and nail in attempt to keep the painting hung in the capital building as well?

    Sorry but hate speech is hate speech and no one (except the black caucus apparently) supports it or hanging representations of it in our capital. Quit being idiots and take the shit down

  • GMAFB

    It would be hard to hang back up if it ‘accidentally ‘ had gasoline poured on it and ‘accidentally’ came in contact with a flame.

    • Lord_of_Lotion

      Nail polish remover. Those darn secretaries are so careless with that stuff. We tried to wipe it off. Turned out it was pure acetone. Sorry about that. We were in tears about it.

  • Eric Aust
    • ChainedPhantom .

      Satire based on a lie anyway, as it was later proven that Michael Brown was a thug and that it was a justifiable shooting by that officer, but sweep that under the rug, I suppose. *lol*

      • Rusti Ace

        you do realize I agree with you? it is wrong for those who create laws that Police must enforce to hang this in the halls of goverment … it is a slap in the face especially when they have security to protect themselves from any danger and the police have to go out with only the protection of the law.

        But I wont hide behind saying it was wrong to paint it or for anyone to like it.

        it is freedom if speech … but this is the wrong place for it.

        put it in a museum, on a mural.. i dont care .. but for the halls of government it is only an insult and a provecation for those who already hate police.

        you can be one sided and lose or you can attempt to stay on point acknowledge when the other guy has a point and then say why you feel this is not the issue.

        fight smarter not harder

  • Eric Aust

    How can any polititcians consider it appropruate to bash Police officers while they pass laws those same police officers have to enforce?

  • ChainedPhantom .

    NO! They do not GET to display that painting on PUBLIC property. Remember all of the shit THESE people threw against the wall over the confederate flag being flown underneath the US flag outside of government buildings in the south? Remember the stink that got raised over the graves of confederate soldiers being decorated with the flag they fought under? ‘Government offices aren’t places for that!’ K, fine, government offices aren’t places to display your anarchist, anti-law black victimhood either. Sit the fuck down.

  • stuvantine

    Liberals frequently complain about hate speech, but that’s exactly what this is. How about a painting of a black man raping a white woman? Posted in the Capitol to create awareness of the official DOJ finding that 4K white women are raped or otherwise sexually assaulted by black men every year. It’s hard to find because the Obama Admin suppressed it. Would the Black Caucus defend that? I sure wouldn’t. I’d take it down in a heartbeat.

  • Joe Schmoe

    If some dindus set fire to a display of pro cop painting and assaulted random white passerbyers, the same morons and scumbags would be busy defending those animals’ rights to behave like savages