
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
|
|
|
|
|
In
1987 Nelson, a Chicago art student, painted a
portrait of the city’s recently deceased
black male mayor in women’s underwear. The
painting, entitled “Mirth and Girth”
was displayed at the Art Institute of Chicago’s
private student exhibition until, in a dramatic,
televised event the painting was seized by several
city alderman, wrapped in brown paper, somehow
slashed and held in police custody for a day.
Nelson claimed his civil and constitutional rights
were violated and sought damages. The court held
that although the Art Institute received funding
from the City, the City did not own or directly
control the museum and therefore city officials
did not have a right to enter its exhibitions
uninvited and remove art from its walls. The aldermen
did not have immunity from the lawsuit because
it was clear at the time they acted that they
were not acting in accord with the Constitution.
The court rejected the city’s arguments
that aldermen acted to prevent a community race
riot and protect the painting, suggesting the
officials should arrest violent rioters rather
than seize controversial artwork. The court also
held that the taking of the painting, although
temporary, was still an illegal seizure under
the Fourth Amendment. Finally, the court rejected
the argument that all the publicity had actually
enhanced the value of Nelson’s work, and
held the officials liable for damages.

|
|
| 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Moreover, court decisions may be superceded by subsequent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!
|