Isn’t it funny how hypocritical Democrats are?

Especially Democrat Susan Platt, who issued an edict that I thought no self-respecting Democrat would ever utter, cheer or acknowledge.

She loves censorship!

Embraces it.  Cherishes it.  Makes it a campaign platform.

“If I am elected lieutenant governor, I will ask the governor to appoint me to lead a commission charged with taking down Confederate monuments as well as renaming Confederate-themed highways and public buildings,” Platt said in a news release. “Our taxpayer dollars should not be used to celebrate a rebellion against the United States of America, a rebellion intended to maintain slavery.”

 She suggested buildings could be named after former Gov. L. Douglas Wilder — the nation’s first elected African-American governor — and former Attorney General Mary Sue Terry — the only woman elected to statewide office in Virginia — rather than Confederates.  (Richmond Times Dispatch)

That would seem rather contrary to a letter I received last year from the National Coalition Against Censorship.  Quoting from its letter:

“as government officials, you cannot use your power to control public money so as to impose your interpretation of the work on the community as a whole and discriminate against ideas with which you disagree.”

Furthermore,

“Anybody is entitled to criticize art in an exhibition, but First Amendment principles bar government officials from discriminating against controversial viewpoints…  We may differ on cultural or social issues and argue about these issues—in the press, in public spaces, in galleries and performance spaces—but government officials cannot use financial leverage as a threat to silence those with whom they disagree.”

Looks like Susan Platt’s promise puts her in the crosshairs of the National Coalition Against Censorship.

See, monuments and statues are public art.  They are.  I have served on an Arts Commission for nearly a decade, and we get monthly briefings specifically on public art, including monuments, statues and the like.

One thing that has been made abundantly clear is that government wasn’t supposed to make decisions concerning art on a content basis.  Public art placed on public land or right-of-ways or subsidized with public funds has first amendment protection, right Democrats?

Susan Platt wants to tear down public art depending on its content and replace it with a list of “approved Democrats” like Doug Wilder and Mary Sue Terry who are more to her political liking.

So, you probably assume that her two Democratic primary opponents jumped at the chance to protect artistic freedom and oppose content-based censorship of public art.

You’d be wrong.

Both Justin Fairfax and Gene Rossi jumped right on board and called for the destruction of public art solely because they oppose the artistic message.

Whatever happened to free speech Democrats?  Are there any left?    Occasionally some crop up to defend Muslims or support anti-Christian artwork.

Don’t Democrats support artistic freedom anymore?

Or is it only politically correct art that they can support anymore?

Where is the Arts Community?  Silent.

Where are the First Amendment defenders on the left?  Gone.

Public art under attack from Democrats, and there is no sign of any Democrat standing up for art.

National Coalition Against Censorship?  Not a peep from them.

As an Art Commissioner, I’d love for Susan Platt to make me a list of what public art government is allowed to censor and what public art government can protect.  Her “opponents” on the Democratic side can co-sign the list.  Or will she just decide by herself the art she agrees with and the art she doesn’t simply by whim?

Since Democrats like to quote Orwell, I shall paraphrase:  To Democrats, apparently some art is more equal than others.