There is a point that art work can become criminally obscene. A person cannot run through the streets naked. We have standards of decency and behavior. Neither can a person depict these same things through art work. A person shouldn't be allowed to do whatever they want just by calling it art.
I strongly believe that artwork can ever be criminally obscene. This is if an art portrays pictures that are obscene like nude pictures and those that are sexually appealing or either those that portray abuse. Therefore Mike Diana was convicted for the right reasons after his obscene artwork. This should be a warning.
Art can be used to express many things, but if a photograph or video of a crime or criminal act is taken and then displayed as art then I think it should be considered criminal. Can a video of bullying be considered art but also be considered evidence in a criminal case? This is where we must draw a line between the two.
Sick stuff, but funny how one got a criminal conviction and the other got a publishing contract. I guess it goes to show the importance of local government?
You could probably do a google image search to see more of the guy's stuff. I'm not saying I could personally appreciate the artistic merit of it, but I'm with Gaiman on this matter: if we can't (legally) defend the stuff that squicks us out, it will be too late when they come for the stuff we like. It's unacceptable that the artist experienced that.