Update: 9 18 19
https://www.skyhinews.com/news/fraser-amends-sign-code-after-aclu-lawsuit/
A version of this was published by the Sky Hi News July 29, 2019
muftic-the-art-of-free-speech-meets-fraser-sign-code-and-results-in-a-lawsuit/
Local governments and municipal code enforcers across Colorado must have taken a second look at their sign code regulations lately. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed suit against the town of Fraser in July claiming the town "silenced clients simply because it does not approve of what they have to say or the way in which they choose to say it... The Constitution (state and US) does not allow this kind of government censorship of expression. The Town's sign code is a content-based regulation of speech that violates the First Amendment". Aside from the free speech and due process issues, the age-old question is "what is art"? That will not be resolved by this suit, but art has been a vehicle for political protest throughout history. Per the July 25, 2019, Sky-Hi News report, the Town is reviewing the matter.
I cannot predict how the suit will be resolved, but I assume it is connected with the Town of Fraser's goal of turning this old logging town into an art center, therefore giving preference to content that is "art". At issue per the ACLU is that the Fraser sign code exempts art from adhering to physical restrictions such as size, numbers, and placement, in effect exempting one kind of content but not exempting other content like political expression. The ACLU also contends Fraser's ordinance was written so vaguely, those governed could not understand how to comply, depriving them of their right of due process. The issue arose when Fraser residents erected signs on their private property within the town criticizing Donald Trump and climate change policies that exceeded the size and other physical restrictions placed on nonart signs. The residents then tried to make their signs into more artistic looking in order to comply and still were told they were subject to penalties and fines.
Throughout history, art has been used as a form of political protest. In fact, in recent times, one work of art has been credited with ending a civil war. Pablo Picasso's 1937 stunning "Guernica", an eleven by twenty-five-foot painting of disjointed figures in stark black /white/gray/blue cubism, depicted the terror and horrifying results of a Nazi bombing of innocent civilians in a Basque, Spain, town. Picasso was commissioned to paint the subject by the anti-fascist forces fighting the Spanish civil war. Of course, this bombing of civilians in Spain was only the precursor to modern warfare and the widespread death and destruction of innocent civilians in World War II. Nonetheless, it has also been taken as an anti-war message. One does not have to be a Picasso to paint what we would consider "art".
- I wonder what would happen if I displayed a full-size replica of Guernica with a caption: Stop selling weapons to the Saudis who use them to kill innocent civilians in Yemen. To put the shoe on the other foot, what would happen if a neighbor erected a very large sign replicating Andy Warhol type pop art style with multiple MAGA hats in the place of Campbell Soup cans, with captions exhorting support of Donald Trump? My neighbor may live in Fraser, but it is a hypothetical question: my home borders the town of Fraser, but I am in unincorporated Grand County, so the question regarding my sign would not arise from Fraser authorities. The Town of Fraser has opened a can of worms.
_____________________________________________________________________________
A personal note: my paths have crossed Guernica more than once: While I was a student at Northwestern, Guernica was on display at the Chicago Art Institute in the latter 1950s. Before it was returned to Spain in 1981, and during World War II until then, it was housed in New York's Museum of Modern Art (MOMA). I lived in NYC and then visited New York and MOMA often. Each time I saw it, it got me in my gut. Some call it the Mona Lisa of modern art, it is so iconic and compelling. I am privileged to have seen the original of both. Andy Warhol's Campbell Soup cans are also on display at MoMA and I have seen them, too.
https://www.widewalls.ch/political-art/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Warhol
https://www.moma.org/learn/moma_learning/andy-warhol-campbells-soup-cans-1962/
https://www.pablopicasso.org/guernica.jsp
https://www.efe.com/efe/english/varios/madrid-to-celebrate-35th-anniversary-since-return-of-picasso-s-guernica/50000269-3035701
https://www.skyhinews.com/news/aclu-sues-fraser-over-sign-code/
https://www.denverpost.com/2019/07/25/aclu-lawsuit-fraser-free-speech-sign-code/
From the Colorado ACLU press release
“The Town of Fraser has silenced our clients simply because it does not approve of what they have to say or the way in which they choose to say it. The Constitution does not allow this kind of government censorship of expression. The Town’s sign code is a content-based regulation of speech that violates the First Amendment.” https://aclu-co.org/aclu-lawsuit-town-ordinance-silences-residents-freedom-of-speech/
https://aclu-co.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/2019-07-25-FINAL-Complaint.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2eccZvOAXZEIaQiwGiINnuNdFICFHIFrwROWT90T63QXXs81I84avwe_4
From the court filings:
1. Plaintiff Alan Jensen, a resident of Fraser, wishes to display three pieces of political art designed by Plaintiff Melinda McWilliams in his front yard to protest President Donald Trump and call for action on global warming. In response, the Town of Fraser has threatened to enforce its unconstitutional sign code (“Code”) against Plaintiffs, chilling their protected speech. 2. The Code is expansive and applies to all signs erected on private property within the Town. It prescribes myriad regulations for certain signs, including limits on the size, placement, type, duration, and a number of signs. 3. Yet even while substantially restricting certain signs, the Code exempts particular categories of signs based on their content and fails to narrowly tailor the restrictions to any compelling or substantial interest. Therefore, the Code is an unconstitutional content-based restriction that violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and article II, section 10 of the Colorado Constitution, both on its face and as applied to Plaintiffs. 2 50277851.3 4. The Code’s categories are also poorly defined and substantially overlap, leaving residents in the dark as to whether a desired sign or artwork will trigger threats of prosecution. Therefore, the Code is also unconstitutionally vague, in violation of the Due Process Clause and article II, section 25 of the Colorado Constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment