Let me bring this down to Earth. You have an individual right to call EarthEvolves the biggest ********** on ATS. Fine. Both of you probably would. However, if you assumed the Oath of Office and became officers of the State and then went on and on about how EarthEvolves is the biggest ******** then that becomes a problem if it becomes freedom of state speech. You could understand why. If the state is able to target groups of people or individuals then that becomes deadly. Government speech, while it exists, cannot be something that is vaguely defined.

Today a mural, where the issue is debatable. Tomorrow, however, "government speech" could be a license to have a State policy against unions, to actually target unions. The mural is a prelude to that.

I never lied. I oppose the defacing of the mural. I never stated otherwise. As for being communist, it is ever been my opinion that any philosophy relying on guilt to get me to limit my personal freedom I am not so much against as bored to tears even thinking about. The very idea that I, even as someone obtuse, should dress in shabby clothes and shout slogans is worse than boring. I like suits because they are enjoyable and attract women.

Communism is a distraction from the important things in life, namely philosophy, Nature, pleasure, and pwning conservatives on ATS. I have no interest in any kind of statist philosophy of any kind. The state is based on the triumph of agriculture over the hunter-gatherers. It never withers away, and it probably won't in my lifetime, but it certainly won't if it has a messianic philosophy behind it. And, with government speech on the prowl, my sense is that we won't see it limited to the Governor's Mansion, but used anywhere. Even arrests might be targeted to make a point, all done in the name of a sloppy doctrine dredged up to oppose the Occupy movement which, for all of its faults, is the last real American movement there is.

Just to clarify -- the mural was never defaced. The mural was removed and according to court documentation, was placed into an environmentally controlled area suitable for the storage of such artwork.

Another point that should be noted: The case argued two sides here.

Was the artwork "government speech" or the speech of a private Individual. They reasoned that because of the tests set forth in Summums, that the mural itself was in fact "government speech".

They then looked at the actions of the governor in the removal of the mural and the accusations that he was restricting the individual's right to Free Speech. At this point, since the mural was reasoned to be "government speech" that the governor was well within his own Right to change the message being portrayed.

Post Script
On more of a side note, a few of my friends that know me sometimes wonder why I don't call out people on certain actions and I feel it needs to be done here. I now know why you instantly went to questioning my connection to this case (if you notice, I never once wondered or questioned your connection) and even mused if I were an employee of the Governor -- and I never really questioned myself in why or what you were doing...

I am a little unclear on your last paragraph. I don't quite understand it. Again, regardless of the context of the term "government speech," I do not like it because it is vague and can be construed as a legitimation for anything, murals or defacing murals. (Yes, I remember the storage part now. Thanks for reminding me)

Question: If the artist loses in Federal court then will the mural be defaced or returned to the original artist?

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Just to clarify -- the mural was never defaced. The mural was removed and according to court documentation, was placed into an environmentally controlled area suitable for the storage of such artwork.

Another point that should be noted: The case argued two sides here.

Was the artwork "government speech" or the speech of a private Individual. They reasoned that because of the tests set forth in Summums, that the mural itself was in fact "government speech".

They then looked at the actions of the governor in the removal of the mural and the accusations that he was restricting the individual's right to Free Speech. At this point, since the mural was reasoned to be "government speech" that the governor was well within his own Right to change the message being portrayed.

Post Script
On more of a side note, a few of my friends that know me sometimes wonder why I don't call out people on certain actions and I feel it needs to be done here. I now know why you instantly went to questioning my connection to this case (if you notice, I never once wondered or questioned your connection) and even mused if I were an employee of the Governor -- and I never really questioned myself in why or what you were doing...

edit on 25-4-2012 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by EarthEvolves
Question: If the artist loses in Federal court then will the mural be defaced or returned to the original artist?

The artwork became property of the government, more specifically, the Labor Department when it was commissioned and unveiled. While the artwork is the artist's, the mural is property of the government. They paid for it.

My guess in good faith is the mural will eventually be returned -- if it hasn't already (given the drop off of news worthy content on the mural now, we may never know.)

But I ask again -- because you keep making the point that the application of by the court of "government speech" was too broad. In what way is it too broad? As applied here and derived from Summum, the court applied the following to determine if the mural was "government speech".

1: Who funded the project? -- The government
2: Who has final authority? -- The government
3: Where did the project originate from? -- The government
4: Was the Labor Department engaging in their own expressive conduct? Or were they providing a forum for private speech? -- The department sought to express the views of labor and enlisted a private artist to complete it.

The Court in Summum also made a note (the case in which was drawn heavily upon to determine the status of the mural) that "While government speech is not restricted by the Free Speech Clause, the government does not have a free hand to regulate private speech on government property...but any restriction based on the content of the speech must satisfy strict scrutiny, that is, the restriction must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest"

That doesn't sound broad at all! That sounds like the Court recognizes the precarious balance that must be maintained and recognizes that it cannot broadly give Government free reign in determining speech of its own merit.

So again, what is broad? Is it broad because this particular governor didn't like the message that the mural was portraying? Is it broad because it goes against your own ideology?