Despite having their free speech case tossed by a federal judge, lawyers representing David Pulphus argued before the D.C. Circuit for damages to their client. The St. Louis, Missouri’s teen’s work had been hung in the Capitol Building as part of an art contest but was removed by the building’s architect after complaints for depicting police officers as hogs. Lawyers representing Pulphus claim that the work was hung as part of a “limited nonpublic forum” and was protected by the 1st amendment. More
Is the removal of the painting also a form of free speech? What rights do those holding the contest have to decide which works to display or not display?
“nonpublic”…Would it kill you to just use the word “PRIVATE”???
Gaaaaaggghhh….I hate journos and lawyos.
Gee Wally, that’s art?
I dunno Beave, I’ve see better work on the side of a moving boxcar!
If they prevail then all art should be removed…..which is fine…..goes for the NEA,NPR,and the lot.
Lawyer$ are concerned only about their fees.
No one has the right to force someone else to display their work.
Why are we accommodating traitorous “free speech” that is absolute antipathy against the very freedoms which created this nation. Let’s just put Lenin’s portrait next to the Founding Fathers portraits. Enough with this insanity. Stop displaying Marxist inspired “art” in the U.S. Capitol.