Join NCAC Now

» art» media» literature» science» internet» education» entertainment

EXPRESS YOURSELF!


 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

 
CASE NAME: Nelson v. Streeter
CITATION: 16 F.3d 145 (7th Cir. 1994)
Topics: Funding; Seizure/Destruction; Public Figures

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!