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
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?