Maine Supreme Court and "government speech"

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I hold that the Governor has the right to decide on issues involving the decor at the Mansion or State House (subject to Legislature, et al). If the Court had decided on that basis, OK. But, "government speech" is too broad of a basis. How do I explain the mural to begin with? The power of labor which, once gone, means that I don't get paid vacations or lunch breaks.

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.

Originally posted by EarthEvolves
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

Again, the doctrine of government speech is broad and ill defined. You are defining it charitably, but you are not the judge in the case.

And once again, where is it broad? Just claiming it is as such doesn't make it so. The Court applied the strict limits in which were established in Summums as to find out if the mural was in fact, "government speech".

I went from thinking you wanted to discuss and debate the issue to you just being obtuse and deliberately trying not to even answer questions as you have shown repeatedly.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


I am obtuse, but hopefully a good diet might help that. My real objection here is that the judges are legitimating what in essence is a governmental anti-union policy. Unions become the new scapegoat. It begins with defacing a mural but it never ends there.

Originally posted by EarthEvolves
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

I hold that the Governor has the right to decide on issues involving the decor at the Mansion or State House (subject to Legislature, et al). If the Court had decided on that basis, OK. But, "government speech" is too broad of a basis. How do I explain the mural to begin with? The power of labor which, once gone, means that I don't get paid vacations or lunch breaks.

Stop dancing around the labor issue and just come out of the closet and admit you're advocating "government speech" as long as it is pro-labor union, but against "government speech" if it disagrees with your personal belief system.

Further, it is a tad histrionic to suggest painting over a mural depicting struggles of "labor" will somehow erase your paid vacations and lunch breaks, but most importantly, it is grossly ignorant to suggest that the only way you could ever negotiate paid vacations and lunch breaks is through collective bargaining methods and that you, by implication, are powerless as an individual to make a contract with an employer to your liking.

The hypocrisy bleeds dark red, darker than communist red, in this thread.

Originally posted by EarthEvolves
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

I am obtuse, but hopefully a good diet might help that. My real objection here is that the judges are legitimating what in essence is a governmental anti-union policy. Unions become the new scapegoat. It begins with defacing a mural but it never ends there.

Thank you for finally getting to what your real issue is! This isn't about "government speech", it is about said government not liking the "labor" movement portrayed! I give you a star for honesty.

And witty on the obtuse play...though...I am not sure if credit is due here.

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.

reply to post by EarthEvolves

I never lied. I oppose the defacing of the mural. I never stated otherwise.

Lies of omission are still lies and obfuscation is a form of lying. No one has accused you of backpedaling on the opposition to the defacing of the mural, and you know this. So, why make such an assertion as the one above? You're obfuscating. What you are being accused of is the hypocrisy of screaming "government speech" should be limited, but you clearly favor the painting of the labor union mural to begin with, so what you want limited are those views that disagree with your own.

Thank God this country is not a democracy.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


To the contrary, I never obfuscated. I oppose the mural defacing, hence my initial disgust. However, adding to that, I also oppose an open-ended doctrine of the type discussed. Open-ended doctrines tend to go together with tyranny, as does the defacement of beautiful art. Historically, there is a connection between these two.

Yes, thank God we are not a pure majoritarian society. I agree. Otherwise a nation of idiots watching "American Idolatry" and chanting "Drill Baby Drill" would have voted us completely in to a tyranny by now....which actually has kind of happened so maybe we are far down there by now.

reply to post by EarthEvolves


You continue to obfuscate while claiming to do the opposite. I have all ready pointed out that no one has challenged your claim that you oppose the defacement of the mural, and your continued insistence on this is only to avoid admitting that you most assuredly do support "government speech" when it is in the form of murals praising labor unions.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Not necessarily do I believe in government speech. If someone wanted to deface a mural celebrating pioneers settling the west because it is racially insensitive, I would consider that political correctness run amok. I put a higher bar on erasing a mural or defacing it than I would in erecting a mural. "Government speech" in painting a mural is more acceptable to me than "government speech" in actually defacing a mural because the former is less likely to lead to extremism and persecution. That is a "smell test" and not an absolute rule, but a good rule none the less.

reply to post by EarthEvolves


Of course, the many business people who openly complained about the mural found it to be something that led to extremist attitudes towards business in general, and persecution of business people for having the audacity to earn a profit. It is a one-sided mural that does not reflect the whole of a state, but only reflects the narrow and woefully ignorant view of economy, and is in every way "government speech" promoting an ideology not reflective of the state as whole. Your "smell test" stinks to high heaven.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


How did the mural persecute business? It seems like business is alive and well...
well, big business anyhow.

Originally posted by EarthEvolves
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

How did the mural persecute business? It seems like business is alive and well...
well, big business anyhow.

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

Yep, few truly care about small business and how the highly regulatory system affects their bottom line far more crucially than it does big business. Nope, people, much like you, don't much care if smaller businesses succeed or fail, because for those who praise labor, small business is not worthy of their concern. Labor loves corporatism and corporations love labor, mostly because labor is constantly pointing to corporations and declaring this is what is wrong with capitalism and the corporatist hates capitalism.

In the article I linked earlier, the Governors representative, or maybe even the Governor himself speak to the complaints they'd been getting from businesses about that mural. La Page was elected - by and large - for his pro business stance, which made him electable because of previous administrations anti-business stance, that kind of pro-labor stance.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I think it is very telling that you consider a mural that is pro-labor to be anti-business. This is telling, because it says that you believe in a zero sum game. Those who believe in a zero-sum game will fail in business or anything else. Yes, I oppose corporatism but it is not the reason your business fails. If you view your workingclass customers so negatively, it will show in your attitude to them. They won't shop there. It is that simple.

Instead of blaming "people like me" for your business failing, consider your own hostility. That may be the reason you failed as a businessman. Learn from it, and start again.

reply to post by EarthEvolves


MY hardline stance against labor unions who - unlike you - boldly and unabashedly embrace Marxism has nothing at all to do with sum zero games, and your desperation is showing.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


The current union leadership is corporatist and moderate, as you say, and not Marxist. Corporatism means accommodationism and the acceptance of capitalism. You just stated yourself that they are corporatist, and now you contradict yourself. It is you sir who are desperate, and also you blame your business failures on others----very UN-conservative of you.

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?