“Art Aimed to Shock” (one of the most unsettling articles I have ever read in Newsweek) fails to answer the questions that it originally evoked in me.

Aliza Shvart’s induced-miscarriage display is one of many works of art crafted to stir up a storm. Well, mission accomplished! This piece with the “aim to shock” has undoubtedly created controversy; people are quickly taking sides on the debate whether banning the art is or is not in violation of the right to free speech. On a strictly moral level, driven by my love for animals and people, I would side with banning such art in a heartbeat. Although, looking at it from a more liberal perspective, I would want the art to be permissible only because it is a basic right that we possess as citizens. Whatever message the artists were trying to communicate, they should be protected under law.

The fact is that censorship always defeats its own purpose, for it creates, in the end, the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion.
-Henry Steele Commager

The article also reflects on the idea that banning the piece deterred others from formulating their own thoughts on the issue. It did not grant individual people the choice to accept it or reject it. Through an ethical outlook and a liberal lens, I see two different approaches emerging from the same problem and because of it, I don’t know where I stand.