in support of free expression
The information presented here by the National
Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) may be freely redistributed in its entirety,
provided that readers are informed that the information was obtained from
NCAC's World Wide Web site and that credit is given to the appropriate source
of whatever information is used. Permission is expressly granted for the information
obtained to be made available for file transfer from installations offering
unrestricted anonymous file transfer on the Internet. Information found here
may not be sold for profit or incorporated in commercial documents without
the written permission from the National Coalition Against Censorship.
©Copyright 2005 NCAC
WEB DESIGN
Jeanne Criscola Criscola Design
free speech first amendment censorship
|
|
|
|
|
Upon
invitation by the city hall art committee, Mrs.
Henderson submitted a number of oil paintings
for display in the Rotunda of Murfreesboro City
Hall. All of the submitted pieces were placed
in the Rotunda for display, including a painting
of a partially nude woman (see below). After receiving
a complaint that display of the painting constituted
sexual harassment, the city attorney determined
that, though the sexual harassment complaint was
unlikely to be successful, the painting did violate
the city’s sexual harassment policy because
it was sexually explicit. The city attorney removed
the painting from the Rotunda. A new policy for
the art display in the Rotunda was adopted to
prohibit pieces of art that infringe upon the
city’s employee policies. Henderson claims
that her First Amendment to freedom of expression
was violated with the removal of her painting
and that the new art policy also violated the
First Amendment.
The court ruled that the painting was protected
under the First Amendment, but the level of protection
depends on the type of forum in which it is displayed.
The Rotunda at the city hall is a limited public
forum because the art committee invited submission
of artworks and opened the Rotunda for display
of the art. In a limited
public forum, the government may constitutionally
enforce reasonable time,
place, and manner regulations which may be
content-based
as long as the restrictions are narrowly drawn
to further a compelling state interest. The removal
of the painting was indeed content-based and was
not done in accordance with a narrowly drawn regulation.
The court found the initial restrictions on art
submission and display were not narrowly drawn:
the removal of the painting was an arbitrary decision
made by the city without the guidance of a policy.
Therefore, the removal of the painting violated
Henderson’s First Amendment rights. The
court was unable to rule on the constitutionality
of the new art policy because this policy was
enacted after Henderson’s rights were violated
and therefore, she was not directly hurt by it.
|
|
| These
materials are not intended, and should not be used, as
legal advice. They necessarily contain generalizations
that are not applicable in all jurisdictions or circumstances.
Moreover, court decisions may be superceded by subsequent
rulings, and may be subject to alternative interpretations.
Corrections, clarification, and additions are welcome.
Please send to ncac@ncac.org. |
|
Action Alerts
» National
» Eastern
» Central
» Mountain
» Pacific
» email alert sign-up
» report censorship!
|
