Public Murals and Free Speech on Public Forums

[Jason Harvestdancer]

California city washes away Black Lives Matter street art after resident asks for ‘MAGA 2020’ painting

Roughly two weeks after a massive Black Lives Matter street painting appeared in downtown Redwood City, Calif., it was washed away — leaving the asphalt without a trace of the message’s familiar bright yellow paint. But unlike in other cities where vandals targeting BLM murals have been arrested and even charged with a hate crime, this time the city suddenly removed the artwork.

...

But supporters of the artwork, who have expressed outrage over its removal, point to another factor they say actually prompted the city to take action: one resident’s request to paint “MAGA 2020” along the same stretch of street.

“They made the decision to take Black Lives Matter off the street at the first person that proposed the MAGA 2020,” Redwood City resident Dan Pease, who spearheaded the effort behind the original art piece, told KRON-TV.

The city first granted permission for the mural, and even supplied materials. After that, once the streets had been made into a public speech forum, someone requested a different mural. The city said "Uh, it's about traffic and safety." Stated reason, meet actual reason.

So they wash away the mural. Um, too late suckers. You made it a public forum, AND you supplied the material. You can't take it back that easily. You gave one message two weeks, you need to give any message two weeks.

“I’d like to make it clear now: this is not the outcome I wanted, nor one that I requested,” she recently wrote in the community Facebook group. “I made my request because I saw that the courthouse square was being used as a public forum, and, as a Redwood City resident, wanted to participate."

She added: “I did not ask for the mural’s removal, nor did I threaten legal action.”

She's being called a racist for submitting a request that had the older granted request scrubbed. In order to avoid giving both sides a voice the city decided to give neither side a voice and that is called "white supremacy" by the woman's critics.

The city is in a tough bind. If they grant the BLM mural, they pretty much have to grant the MAGA mural. If they deny the MAGA mural, they pretty much have to grant the BLM mural. But they already granted the BLM mural, before they erased it.

Perhaps, since one mural was for two weeks, the other mural should be for two weeks?

 

[Patooka]

But supporters of the artwork, who have expressed outrage over its removal, point to another factor they say actually prompted the city to take action: one resident’s request to paint “MAGA 2020” along the same stretch of street.

I suspect there is more than one resident who supports Black Lives Matter in Redwood City. If a significant portion of the city wanted MAGA 2020, your argument might have merit. It doesn't

Now, put your fingers away from the keyboard, Jason Harvestdancer. Not only am I psychic, I can see into the future. Your next response will be some snide remark about how I am a hypocrite because I'm ignoring a minority sentiment in a town in California whilst supporting a movement such as BLM. I know you are a smart guy, and I know you know there is a difference between good faith and bad faith statements. I know Maria Rutenburg is pontificating from a bad faith position because, as I have mentioned, I am psychic. There's also the minor detail that Rutenburg is trivializing a civil rights movement by saying it is equivalent to an election slogan. If she wanted to paint "All Lives Matter", she'd still be a litigious Karen, but her argument would have some merit.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

This action seems like kowtowing to terrorism. MAGA 2020 is obviously a political campaign slogan and should be rejected on that grounds.
Imagine if anytime a public service notice was put up on council property and someone said you should put up my private message such as" ISIS is great" or similar message, claiming free speech; or for the reason the council removed the BLM sign because they thought they would then have no obligation to also permit a hate speech sign. They could simply reject it on the grounds that it is hate speech and as I said as a political campaign slogan.

This reminds me about another so-called "free speech" matter but I will create an actual separate thread for that Re: a person called DeAnna Lorraine.

 

[Metaphor]

I suspect there is more than one resident who supports Black Lives Matter in Redwood City. If a significant portion of the city wanted MAGA 2020, your argument might have merit. It doesn't

There is an asymmetry here: you talk about more than one resident supporting BLM (the movement, not the mural) but you deny that there is or could be a significant proportion that 'want' MAGA 2020 (presumably, the mural).

According to this map, about 12-14% of Redwood City voted for Trump in 2016. Taking that as an upper limit, and presuming Trump has gained no supporters who did not vote for him in 2016 but has lost some support among those who did vote for him, let's say 6-7% of people in Redwood City would support a proposed MAGA 2020 mural. Is that enough support?

 

[skepticalbip]

But supporters of the artwork, who have expressed outrage over its removal, point to another factor they say actually prompted the city to take action: one resident’s request to paint “MAGA 2020” along the same stretch of street.

I suspect there is more than one resident who supports Black Lives Matter in Redwood City. If a significant portion of the city wanted MAGA 2020, your argument might have merit. It doesn't

It looks like the city's lawyers disagree with you. Apparently they advised the city that BLM is a political movement and painting the street is a political message. As such, they would have to allow counter political messages so the city eradicated the BLM message. Lawyers love to argue winning cases but hate having to argue a loosing case. Here, it seems they think it would be a loosing case.

 

[Patooka]

But supporters of the artwork, who have expressed outrage over its removal, point to another factor they say actually prompted the city to take action: one resident’s request to paint “MAGA 2020” along the same stretch of street.

I suspect there is more than one resident who supports Black Lives Matter in Redwood City. If a significant portion of the city wanted MAGA 2020, your argument might have merit. It doesn't

It looks like the city's lawyers disagree with you. Apparently they advised the city that BLM is a political movement and painting the street is a political message. As such, they would have to allow counter political messages so the city eradicated the BLM message. Lawyers love to argue winning cases but hate having to argue a loosing case. Here, it seems they think it would be a loosing case.

You have a point. I would argue that BLM is more of a civil rights movement and MAGA 2020 is an ostensibly political one. I also think you're spot on about lawyers and how they pick their battles and in this case decided it wasn't a hill worth dying on. None of these statements are mutually exclusive.

The bit I find objectionable about this OP is that apparently it's unacceptable for a city council, after seeing only one petition, to say, "We fucked up. This could get out of hand real quick, we need to put a stop to this" and instead must be obligated to place more slogans onto roads, leading toward a "bias towards fairness" bordering on the absurd. I should have made that clear and I didn't. That's my fault.

I mean a real libertarian would applaud Redwood City for putting an end to this sort of practice whilst condemning the original action in the first place. That's not the argument being made here.

 

[J842P]

But supporters of the artwork, who have expressed outrage over its removal, point to another factor they say actually prompted the city to take action: one resident’s request to paint “MAGA 2020” along the same stretch of street.

I suspect there is more than one resident who supports Black Lives Matter in Redwood City. If a significant portion of the city wanted MAGA 2020, your argument might have merit. It doesn't

Now, put your fingers away from the keyboard, Jason Harvestdancer. Not only am I psychic, I can see into the future. Your next response will be some snide remark about how I am a hypocrite because I'm ignoring a minority sentiment in a town in California whilst supporting a movement such as BLM. I know you are a smart guy, and I know you know there is a difference between good faith and bad faith statements. I know Maria Rutenburg is pontificating from a bad faith position because, as I have mentioned, I am psychic. There's also the minor detail that Rutenburg is trivializing a civil rights movement by saying it is equivalent to an election slogan. If she wanted to paint "All Lives Matter", she'd still be a litigious Karen, but her argument would have some merit.

All of this is irrelevant to the legal issue, though. They are stuck in a bind. This is quite similar to when Satanists put up statues in response to the 10 Commandments or something being erected in a public forum. And the LaVeyan Satanists who do it don't even believe in Satan.

 

[Patooka]

All of this is irrelevant to the legal issue, though. They are stuck in a bind. This is quite similar to when Satanists put up statues in response to the 10 Commandments or something being erected in a public forum. And the LaVeyan Satanists who do it don't even believe in Satan.

Not as much of a legal bind as you would suspect. Redwood can mea culpa that the BLM mural was short sighted and ill-advised and revise their stance/legislation accordingly. And considering the public statement quoted in the article:

Staff is concerned about public safety issues that may arise from painting murals on its public streets, which could result in driver confusion and traffic accidents,” city spokeswoman Jennifer Yamaguma told The Washington Post in a statement early Wednesday. “Thus, the existing mural has been removed from Broadway and no further art installation will be authorized on the City’s streets.

It appears that is the position that they have taken. From a libertarian perspective this is an example of government overreach, government realising it and then correcting the error. No hypocrisy or rights violations required.

 

[cycomiko]

But supporters of the artwork, who have expressed outrage over its removal, point to another factor they say actually prompted the city to take action: one resident’s request to paint “MAGA 2020” along the same stretch of street.

I suspect there is more than one resident who supports Black Lives Matter in Redwood City. If a significant portion of the city wanted MAGA 2020, your argument might have merit. It doesn't

Now, put your fingers away from the keyboard, Jason Harvestdancer. Not only am I psychic, I can see into the future. Your next response will be some snide remark about how I am a hypocrite because I'm ignoring a minority sentiment in a town in California whilst supporting a movement such as BLM. I know you are a smart guy, and I know you know there is a difference between good faith and bad faith statements. I know Maria Rutenburg is pontificating from a bad faith position because, as I have mentioned, I am psychic. There's also the minor detail that Rutenburg is trivializing a civil rights movement by saying it is equivalent to an election slogan. If she wanted to paint "All Lives Matter", she'd still be a litigious Karen, but her argument would have some merit.

All of this is irrelevant to the legal issue, though. They are stuck in a bind. This is quite similar to when Satanists put up statues in response to the 10 Commandments or something being erected in a public forum. And the LaVeyan Satanists who do it don't even believe in Satan.

MAGA 2020 is a campaign slogan for a certain presidential candidate. BLM may be a political statement but it's not a campaign slogan. Legally, I also see it similar to putting a Baphomet up on the same grounds as the 10 commandments. But when the govt removes the 10 commandments the Satanic Temple removes the Baphomet. Not a big deal. I would totally let them paint MAGA2020 if they would also put BIDEN2020 next to it.

To nitpick, it's actually The Satanic Temple that do the political trolling and not the LaVeyan Satanists (Church of Satan). I'm a member of TST and frequently donate to their political causes. Oddly enough, my company won't match those donations.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So is this life now in the US? Any minority gets a little recognition and a small group of white people whine, "But what about us white people? We have rights too!"

 

[cycomiko]

So is this life now in the US? Any minority gets a little recognition and a small group of white people whine, "But what about us white people? We have rights too!"

Did you ever read The Atheist Manifesto? And interesting idea is that the current "wave" of Christian evangelism is happening because they're starting to realize they're becoming irrelevant and losing power so they get louder. I feel like insecure white folks are now doing the same. Of course, I'm sure it's actually been going on for years and I just started to pay attention to it a decade ago.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So is this life now in the US? Any minority gets a little recognition and a small group of white people whine, "But what about us white people? We have rights too!"

Did you ever read The Atheist Manifesto? And interesting idea is that the current "wave" of Christian evangelism is happening because they're starting to realize they're becoming irrelevant and losing power so they get louder. I feel like insecure white folks are now doing the same. Of course, I'm sure it's actually been going on for years and I just started to pay attention to it a decade ago.

Have you seen the (or any) video clip of the anti-masker being hounded for shopping without a filter? In the one I'm thinking of, a blonde is screaming that she has a breathing problem and cannot wear a mask. She's quite upset that this perfect little excuse she saw online isn't just being accepted at face value, just cuz she says so.

This seems like speed reading performance art of the political change of the last 50 years. Since Viet Nam and Watergate, we've largely stopped trusting the government. We're questioning govt, corporate, religion, their actions and motives.
So people who were raised to just accept what the President, or pastor, or public relations person put out, and parroted that, are being questioned, too.
Used to be, you just SAID homos were a threat, you could fire them. Because ick. Now, simply saying this truth doesn't have much clout. It's still A truth, to some, but their truth is no longer THE truth.

And people who have always questioned THE truth are gaining a voice.

No wonder people are scared.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In general, running along side the iOS and DOS war was the Truth narrative wars getting in full swing in the 80s with right-wing media (AM Radio at the time). It has matured to the awful mess it is today with Conway saying there are "alternative facts".

We've got liberal truth which has a wide spectrum ranging from truth to homeopathic medicine. Then there is right-wing truth, which runs a tighter band of spectrum between misinformed lies to QAnon.

You get these counter protesters out there whining, 'but what about me?' in large part because they've been indoctrinated to think white Christians have been persecuted in the US over the last 40 years.

 

[cycomiko]

So is this life now in the US? Any minority gets a little recognition and a small group of white people whine, "But what about us white people? We have rights too!"

Did you ever read The Atheist Manifesto? And interesting idea is that the current "wave" of Christian evangelism is happening because they're starting to realize they're becoming irrelevant and losing power so they get louder. I feel like insecure white folks are now doing the same. Of course, I'm sure it's actually been going on for years and I just started to pay attention to it a decade ago.

Have you seen the (or any) video clip of the anti-masker being hounded for shopping without a filter? In the one I'm thinking of, a blonde is screaming that she has a breathing problem and cannot wear a mask. She's quite upset that this perfect little excuse she saw online isn't just being accepted at face value, just cuz she says so.

This seems like speed reading performance art of the political change of the last 50 years. Since Viet Nam and Watergate, we've largely stopped trusting the government. We're questioning govt, corporate, religion, their actions and motives.
So people who were raised to just accept what the President, or pastor, or public relations person put out, and parroted that, are being questioned, too.
Used to be, you just SAID homos were a threat, you could fire them. Because ick. Now, simply saying this truth doesn't have much clout. It's still A truth, to some, but their truth is no longer THE truth.

And people who have always questioned THE truth are gaining a voice.

No wonder people are scared.

I've had similar conversations with my sister-in-law. Don't recall the latest topic but her response was "well, it's true to me" at which point I simply told her that discussion was pointless since "true to her" was completely at odds with the facts of the matter. This is also the woman (34 years old now) who once asked me if chemtrails were real because she saw something on facebook and couldn't figure out immediately if it was bullshit or not.

I was born in 79 so I didn't really grasp what was going on politically until the Clinton years and I remember being in high school hearing Newt talk and thinking "what the fuck is he going on about?".

I suppose we just let these people cry themselves to sleep so the adults can take over again.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The bit I find objectionable about this OP is that apparently it's unacceptable for a city council, after seeing only one petition, to say, "We fucked up. This could get out of hand real quick, we need to put a stop to this" and instead must be obligated to place more slogans onto roads, leading toward a "bias towards fairness" bordering on the absurd. I should have made that clear and I didn't. That's my fault.

I mean a real libertarian would applaud Redwood City for putting an end to this sort of practice whilst condemning the original action in the first place. That's not the argument being made here.

The problem is the cat is out of the bag. The city council is closing the barn door after the horse has escaped. Whatever other cliche you prefer. Sure, now that a proposal they don't like has come forward they "discover" a safety issue, but they have already set the ball in motion.

I can't wait to see if this spreads to New York where the mayor has assigned 27 police to guard one mural there.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So is this life now in the US? Any minority gets a little recognition and a small group of white people whine, "But what about us white people? We have rights too!"

Nobody said that until you did.

 

[SimpleDon]

California city washes away Black Lives Matter street art after resident asks for ‘MAGA 2020’ painting

Roughly two weeks after a massive Black Lives Matter street painting appeared in downtown Redwood City, Calif., it was washed away — leaving the asphalt without a trace of the message’s familiar bright yellow paint. But unlike in other cities where vandals targeting BLM murals have been arrested and even charged with a hate crime, this time the city suddenly removed the artwork.

...

But supporters of the artwork, who have expressed outrage over its removal, point to another factor they say actually prompted the city to take action: one resident’s request to paint “MAGA 2020” along the same stretch of street.

“They made the decision to take Black Lives Matter off the street at the first person that proposed the MAGA 2020,” Redwood City resident Dan Pease, who spearheaded the effort behind the original art piece, told KRON-TV.

The city first granted permission for the mural, and even supplied materials. After that, once the streets had been made into a public speech forum, someone requested a different mural. The city said "Uh, it's about traffic and safety." Stated reason, meet actual reason.

So they wash away the mural. Um, too late suckers. You made it a public forum, AND you supplied the material. You can't take it back that easily. You gave one message two weeks, you need to give any message two weeks.

“I’d like to make it clear now: this is not the outcome I wanted, nor one that I requested,” she recently wrote in the community Facebook group. “I made my request because I saw that the courthouse square was being used as a public forum, and, as a Redwood City resident, wanted to participate."

She added: “I did not ask for the mural’s removal, nor did I threaten legal action.”

She's being called a racist for submitting a request that had the older granted request scrubbed. In order to avoid giving both sides a voice the city decided to give neither side a voice and that is called "white supremacy" by the woman's critics.

The city is in a tough bind. If they grant the BLM mural, they pretty much have to grant the MAGA mural. If they deny the MAGA mural, they pretty much have to grant the BLM mural. But they already granted the BLM mural, before they erased it.

Perhaps, since one mural was for two weeks, the other mural should be for two weeks?

No, MAGA is a blatantly political slogan. BLM is a humanitarian message, meant to counter the remnants of damage from "separate but equal" and "segregation now, segregation forever" and "As a class, I say it boldly; there is not a happier, more contented race upon the face of the earth." Etc.

 

[laughing dog]

California city washes away Black Lives Matter street art after resident asks for ‘MAGA 2020’ painting



The city first granted permission for the mural, and even supplied materials. After that, once the streets had been made into a public speech forum, someone requested a different mural. The city said "Uh, it's about traffic and safety." Stated reason, meet actual reason.

So they wash away the mural. Um, too late suckers. You made it a public forum, AND you supplied the material. You can't take it back that easily. You gave one message two weeks, you need to give any message two weeks.



She's being called a racist for submitting a request that had the older granted request scrubbed. In order to avoid giving both sides a voice the city decided to give neither side a voice and that is called "white supremacy" by the woman's critics.

The city is in a tough bind. If they grant the BLM mural, they pretty much have to grant the MAGA mural. If they deny the MAGA mural, they pretty much have to grant the BLM mural. But they already granted the BLM mural, before they erased it.

Perhaps, since one mural was for two weeks, the other mural should be for two weeks?

No, MAGA is a blatantly political slogan. BLM is a humanitarian message, meant to counter the remnants of damage from "separate but equal" and "segregation now, segregation forever" and "As a class, I say it boldly; there is not a happier, more contented race upon the face of the earth." Etc.

I agree with you. I think the notion of what constitutes "political" has been stretched out of recognition. But given the apparent modern interpretation of "political" (i.e. anything anyone talks about in the public sphere), BLM is "political".

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

This action seems like kowtowing to terrorism. MAGA 2020 is obviously a political campaign slogan and should be rejected on that grounds.

That was my initial response. Not all fora are anything-goes. Few are. Using public property as a forum may create concerns of favouritism for some views or causes over others, but it's silly to think we can't materially differentiate some expressions over others in this case.

 

[KeepTalking]

I'm having a problem with what part of an art installation constitutes a public forum?

Does it mean I can go down to the city hall and hang my picture next to George Washington's?