Public Murals and Free Speech on Public Forums

[Trausti]

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.

The government is to be viewpoint neutral. This is not new territory. Kinda sad that posters on an atheist/agnostic forum don’t get that.

 

[skepticalbip]

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?

That is a Non sequitur.... It means that if one candidate for mayor is allowed to hang his picture next to George Washington's in city hall then all candidates for mayor would be be allowed to hang their picture.

 

[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!"

Nobody said that until you did.

Actually, they are.

 

[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?

That is a Non sequitur.... It means that if one candidate for mayor is allowed to hang his picture next to George Washington's in city hall then all candidates for mayor would be be allowed to hang their picture.

Then what granted the right for someone to hang George Washington's picture there in the first place?

 

[Patooka]

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.

And then realised their error and put a stop to it. This is one of those instances where the toothpaste can go back into the tube the genie goes back into the bottle etc.You're implying that Redwood Council is obligated to give MAGA enthusiasts a pity fuck and I'm saying they don't. Your argument is pretty infantile.

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

I know I'm fucking stupid, but I'm pretty certain a Mayor or one city isn't responsible for the actions of a Mayor of another city.

 

[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.

Actually, they are.

Now that you brought it up yes, you are talking about it.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

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

I know I'm fucking stupid, but I'm pretty certain a Mayor or one city isn't responsible for the actions of a Mayor of another city.

Not saying he is responsible, that's a pretty weird mis-reading. However, I am saying that if a Republican in New York City were to see this and request a mural ... and 27 police officers to protect it ... the show would be fun to watch.

 

[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.

The government is to be viewpoint neutral. This is not new territory. Kinda sad that posters on an atheist/agnostic forum don’t get that.

This is, semantically, nonsense unless you provide context. Viewpoint neutral with regard to what and in what scenarios? Public art?

Allowing a BLM installation isn't necessarily endorsing BLM. If a municipality allows certain spaces for art, it should set forward neutral criteria for approvals. That may very well exclude the endorsement of political parties, in which case it should exclude such endorsements as a rule. There are certainly other criteria which could be considered which are neutral, but not necessarily blanket permission to paint whatever one likes with zero limitations.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Actually, they are.

Now that you brought it up yes, you are talking about it.

The savior of individual rights, striking at the "enemy" with their famed weapon... sarcasm.

 

[Trausti]

The government is to be viewpoint neutral. This is not new territory. Kinda sad that posters on an atheist/agnostic forum don’t get that.

This is, semantically, nonsense unless you provide context. Viewpoint neutral with regard to what and in what scenarios? Public art?

Allowing a BLM installation isn't necessarily endorsing BLM. If a municipality allows certain spaces for art, it should set forward neutral criteria for approvals. That may very well exclude the endorsement of political parties, in which case it should exclude such endorsements as a rule. There are certainly other criteria which could be considered which are neutral, but not necessarily blanket permission to paint whatever one likes with zero limitations.

A BLM installation isn't necessarily endorsing BLM. Da fuk? A cross isn't necessarily endorsing Christianity. The whole point of viewpoint neutrality is that a bias decider doesn't get to make the call. It's all viewpoints or none. How someone might subjectively interpret it is irrelevant.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

A BLM installation isn't necessarily endorsing BLM. Da fuk?

Is that what I said? Hint: no, it wasn't. Allowing a BLM installation isn't necessarily endorsing BLM.

The whole point of viewpoint neutrality is that a bias decider doesn't get to make the call. It's all viewpoints or none. How someone might subjectively interpret it is irrelevant.

What does any of this have to do with what I said to you?
"Hey City Hall: I saw you let someone put up a temporary mural for Veterans Day. I'd like to put up a mural of tits and dongs."
"Unfortunately that violates our policy on..."
"If you let one thing go up you have to let anything go up. TITS AND DONGS NOW YOU TYRANNICAL FUCKERS!"
"Sir, please calm down."
"I'll drop the mural issue for now. But I noticed there was a statue of our town's founder in a local park. If that statue can go up then you have to let me display my statue of Stalin skullfucking Abraham Lincoln in the park. It's very tastefully done, I assure you."

There is no requirement to allow all things in all contexts. That's not what neutrality means.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

1. a. BLM paints mural. b. BLM has designation of issue advocacy, not candidate support.
2. a. People complain. b. One complaint is yellow paint artwork on a street is dangerous.
3. Complaints are on-going and traffic and road regulations are analyzed.
4. a. An individual concurrently requests a MAGA 2020 mural. b. MAGA is not issue advocacy, but supporting a specific campaign.
5. a. City employees remove BLM mural. b. When asked what happened, city officials say it was determined that yellow paint as a mural on road was dangerous and presented legal risk.

Conservolibertarians claim the city is lying. They make a post hoc ergo propter hoc inference that 4a ==> 5a, instead of alternative 2b ==> 5a. Is there a proof given?

Conservolibertarians next claim if artwork expressing issue advocacy is allowed, artwork expressing candidate advocacy must also be allowed. It can be inferred their assumption is viewpoint neutrality cannot be strictly in the domain of issue advocacy. Is it an assumption or fact grounded in law?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You keep using white supremacist dog whistles. Is there something you're trying to tell us?

 

[Trausti]

A BLM installation isn't necessarily endorsing BLM. Da fuk?

Is that what I said? Hint: no, it wasn't. Allowing a BLM installation isn't necessarily endorsing BLM.

The whole point of viewpoint neutrality is that a bias decider doesn't get to make the call. It's all viewpoints or none. How someone might subjectively interpret it is irrelevant.

What does any of this have to do with what I said to you?
"Hey City Hall: I saw you let someone put up a temporary mural for Veterans Day. I'd like to put up a mural of tits and dongs."
"Unfortunately that violates our policy on..."
"If you let one thing go up you have to let anything go up. TITS AND DONGS NOW YOU TYRANNICAL FUCKERS!"
"Sir, please calm down."
"I'll drop the mural issue for now. But I noticed there was a statue of our town's founder in a local park. If that statue can go up then you have to let me display my statue of Stalin skullfucking Abraham Lincoln in the park. It's very tastefully done, I assure you."

There is no requirement to allow all things in all contexts. That's not what neutrality means.

If the government opens up a forum for a group to express it’s view, it is open to everyone. This isn’t hard, dude. This may be an outdated reference, but EVERYONE gets to be on the public access channel.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Is that what I said? Hint: no, it wasn't. Allowing a BLM installation isn't necessarily endorsing BLM.



What does any of this have to do with what I said to you?
"Hey City Hall: I saw you let someone put up a temporary mural for Veterans Day. I'd like to put up a mural of tits and dongs."
"Unfortunately that violates our policy on..."
"If you let one thing go up you have to let anything go up. TITS AND DONGS NOW YOU TYRANNICAL FUCKERS!"
"Sir, please calm down."
"I'll drop the mural issue for now. But I noticed there was a statue of our town's founder in a local park. If that statue can go up then you have to let me display my statue of Stalin skullfucking Abraham Lincoln in the park. It's very tastefully done, I assure you."

There is no requirement to allow all things in all contexts. That's not what neutrality means.

If the government opens up a forum for a group to express it’s view, it is open to everyone. This isn’t hard, dude. This may be an outdated reference, but EVERYONE gets to be on the public access channel.

That's not what they did, "dude". But even if they did, open to everyone doesn't mean all content approved. It never has.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Is that what I said? Hint: no, it wasn't. Allowing a BLM installation isn't necessarily endorsing BLM.



What does any of this have to do with what I said to you?
"Hey City Hall: I saw you let someone put up a temporary mural for Veterans Day. I'd like to put up a mural of tits and dongs."
"Unfortunately that violates our policy on..."
"If you let one thing go up you have to let anything go up. TITS AND DONGS NOW YOU TYRANNICAL FUCKERS!"
"Sir, please calm down."
"I'll drop the mural issue for now. But I noticed there was a statue of our town's founder in a local park. If that statue can go up then you have to let me display my statue of Stalin skullfucking Abraham Lincoln in the park. It's very tastefully done, I assure you."

There is no requirement to allow all things in all contexts. That's not what neutrality means.

If the government opens up a forum for a group to express it’s view, it is open to everyone. This isn’t hard, dude. This may be an outdated reference, but EVERYONE gets to be on the public access channel.

That's not what they did, "dude". But even if they did, open to everyone doesn't mean all content approved. It never has.

On the other hand, we're not comparing "Veterans Day" with "tits and dongs", we're comparing political speech with political speech. If anything, it is political speech that the 1st amendment was written to protect, although I am happy it was written in such a way as to encompass many other forms of speech.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

That's not what they did, "dude". But even if they did, open to everyone doesn't mean all content approved. It never has.

On the other hand, we're not comparing "Veterans Day" with "tits and dongs", we're comparing political speech with political speech. If anything, it is political speech that the 1st amendment was written to protect, although I am happy it was written in such a way as to encompass many other forms of speech.

No, you're comparing a social movement with the political slogan of a politician running for presidency in the upcoming election.

 

[Patooka]

On the other hand, we're not comparing "Veterans Day" with "tits and dongs", we're comparing political speech with political speech.

I can name elected officials who run on a Democrat platform.
I can name elected officials who run on a Republican platform.
I can name elected officials who run on a Tea Party platform.
I can name elected officials candidates who run on a Libertarian platform.
Donald Trump is running on a MAGA 2020 platform.

There is not a single candidate/official who runs on a BLM platform. They are not the same thing. I apologise that this is so complicated for you.

If the government opens up a forum for a group to express it’s view, it is open to everyone. This isn’t hard, dude. This may be an outdated reference, but EVERYONE gets to be on the public access channel.

Agreed. If the government opens up a forum for a group to express it’s view, realises the unintended consequences of such an action and then corrects it, that's called fixing a mistake and that's fine also.. This isn't rocket science, bruh.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

There is not a single candidate/official who runs on a BLM platform. They are not the same thing. I apologise that this is so complicated for you.

Equating a movement with a campaign leads to an irrelevant result. They are both political speech. I apologize that this is so complicated for you.

 

[Patooka]

There is not a single candidate/official who runs on a BLM platform. They are not the same thing. I apologise that this is so complicated for you.

Equating a movement with a campaign leads to an irrelevant result. They are both political speech. I apologize that this is so complicated for you.

Nope.