"Re Chuck's comment 'So much for freedom of speech and artistic freedom' - I understand what you're saying, but I don't think this is just about artistic freedom. It's more a question of manners and not willingly offending people. There are many symbols that we don't use, mainly out of good taste. Is an image of an upside-down crucifixion satanic or does it represent artistic freedom? I don't know. It may represent the artist's right to express him/herself, but it's also pretty crass." Oh, I'm not upset but... IF this is just a case of bad taste (I mean displaying the swastika somehow...not necessarily the pic in question) and artists shouldn't do it because it has the potential of offending a lot of people... IF we can't show an upside crucifix because it might offend another group of people... IF we (I should say, artists) begin to question whether or not a controversial piece of art will offend someone, is in good taste, etc., then we will no longer have controversial pieces of art. If you think about it, artists have for too may years been the single group of people who have graphically shown human shortcomings, man's inhumanity to humanity, all the things we'd like to keep locked away in a closet and censored, etc. As always, I may not agree with or like everything I see, but I think they should have a right to let their expression flow. As to the pedophile? Child pornography, IMHO, and in the opinion of various studies, isn't just a matter of offending someone. It sometimes leads to far worse things than offense. But that whole discussion is worthy of its own thread. I was trying to keep my comments to the worries of an artist when deciding to show his/er work...that if one must always cater to the opinion that someone might get upset, we'd have nothing but pictures of flowers and puppy dogs (well, actually, that might upset cat lovers...hehe).