<"Anderson simply told Geissel she just didn’t feel safe displaying his piece."

This is the heart of the article. If Mr. Geissel thought his First Amendment rights of free speech were being suppressed, he, as the aggrieved party, must be the one to hire a lawyer and sue. He is apparently reluctant to do so, based on his remarks at the end of the article.

Had government agents come in and pulled the piece, both he and the gallery owner would have been within their rights to sue, and the ACLU might have taken interest if asked. The ACLU, as a matter of organizational policy, waits to be asked, and even then will often decline to become involved. You'd think their lawyers had a piece of every lawsuit in the country, to hear some people talk. Many of those lawyers work pro bono, and so are uninterested in giving up too many billable hours.

Had Ms. Anderson received credible threats of harm stemming from the display, that would be a matter for criminal investigators.

But no mention is made of even so much as a picket line, let alone a rock through the window or any other credible threat. Her response was based entirely on her opinion of what might happen if a Muslim was offended by a piece displayed in her gallery. If I were a Muslim, particularly an American Muslim, I would be insulted by her opinion of my religion. Her remark, "Christians can take it," pretty much says it all: you can challenge a Christian without the risk of physical injury, but those Muslims are all crazy.

If the gallery owner felt her personal safety or the safety of her gallery or her patrons was at risk, however dopily, she was within her rights to pull the piece whose display she herself had solicited. It wasn't a courageous thing to do, but there you go.

Did Mr. Geissel have a contract? He could insist on satisfaction if he did. As it is, he's now getting more publicity for his work than he could ever have dreamed of.

Anyone who draws the conclusion that the Left thinks it's OK for Muslims to behave in ways that limit artistic expression through the use or threat of violence because they are offended need only look at the reaction to the destruction of the Buddhas, or, indeed, to the support offered to Salman Rushdie by an outraged publishing industry, one of those notorious left-wing media enclaves.

Regards--
Mary Anne