Got a blog tip? Contact us
« Winnie the Pooh gets it | Main | Could Vioxx come back from the grave? »
Fighting back
It's always a charge to see people standing up to cease-and-desist letters or fighting back against government officials restricting free expression. Two recent, heartening cases:
1) Marc Ecko wanted to do a promotion for a new graffiti-themed video game. As part of the release party, artists were invited to tag on subway car mockups. When city officials found out the nature of the celebration they pulled the permit for the event, claiming that it would "encourag[e] people to hurt this city."
Instead of altering his plans, Ecko is suing the city for violating the First Amendment by making the permit contingent on a willingness to restrict how they express themselves. No actual vandalism is taking place, so his case is strong. (The hearing is going on as I write.)
2) The Museum of Science and Industry (MOSI) in Tampa, Florida planned an exhibit of skinned human cadavers and other organs. When the Florida Anatomical Board found out about the exhibit, they voted to deny permission to display the bodies because the exhibit did not show proper respect for the dead.
Instead of altering or cancelling the exhibit, MOSI announced that the Board lacked jurisdiction over the display and ignored the ruling, opening up the exhibit ahead of schedule. The Attorney General, who had publicly endorsed the authority of the Board to stop the exhibit has decided not to take steps to shut the exhibit down. Looks like victory.
Fighting back not only helps preserve one's own rights, but those of the rest of us as well. Kudos to Ecko and MOSI for confronting their bullies.
Posted by Charles Star on 08/22/2005 | Permalink
Comments
It's kind of ironic to see a pub with an anti-consumerist bent frame Marc Ecko's right to promote the sale of t-shirts and video games as a First Amendment issue. Just a thought.
Posted by: rah | Aug 22, 2005 2:24:38 PM
I guess so, rah, but you don't always get to pick the best plaintiffs. Plenty of speech that I wouldn't otherwise endorse still deserves to be protected.
Posted by: Charles | Aug 22, 2005 2:32:45 PM
yeah, good point, rah. I agree that equating political speech with commercial speech is problematic. Thanks for keeping us on our toes.
Posted by: carrie | Aug 22, 2005 2:45:56 PM
Thanks for these heartening stories.
I agree with Charles - you may not like this specific case of commercial speech, but it still sets a precedent.
Here's another
Posted by: Nina | Aug 22, 2005 4:30:30 PM
Weird, it cut off my post. Maybe because I used an html tag. Anyway, check out this story of commercial speech squelched by a brewery's capitulation to an absurd lawsuit:
http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/001550.html
This beer label may be in dubious taste, but it ain't no "hate crime." And I may be critcal of rampant consumerism, but rampant religionism scares me more.
Posted by: Nina | Aug 22, 2005 4:34:40 PM
I think it's important to remember that the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment should be extended to the individuals in a democracy, and not to for-profit entities. It seems to me that a precedent in this case would apply to advertisers, and not people. I'm a layman playing devil's advocate, but lets say a group of activists protested cigarette ads on the grounds they were "hurting the people of this city." Should Big Tobacco have the right to advertise wherever they like because of freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment? That having been said, I love the zine and the blog. Keep up the good work folks. (And for the record, I am very pro-graffiti.)
Posted by: rah | Aug 22, 2005 5:19:53 PM
As long as we're mentioning it, yeah I fully agree with Charles, but I do hesitate when a museum is showing dead bodies without proper documentation. From what I've read, that one freaky german, Gunther Von Hagen, who started these modern dead body exhibits has inspired several knock-off exhibitions. Now that museums see the crowds these shows draw in, the demand has exceeded supply. There have been more than one exhibit (inluding this one in Florida and one in SF) with controversy over where the bodies came from and if permission was given by the once living to be in the exhibit after they passed. I think there's some moral problem's there. Especially when there's so much money being made by the promoters. (promoters in museums is another rant entirely)
In fact the Times just wrote a story a few days ago:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/20/arts/design/20bodi.html
I won't argue that these kinds of exhibits shouldn't exist. Nor do I have any interest in attending one. But I will say that if you're going to create, host, or have anything to do with a museum show of dead bodies, get your damn paperwork in order.
It's hard to be on the side of huckster's schilling a questionably ethical, poorly documented show of dead people, but I guess that's where I am. ...yuck.
Posted by: Steve Lambert | Aug 22, 2005 7:11:21 PM
For the record, I agree with Charles too. (I edited the post.) Just because something is commercial speech shouldn't give the government free license to censor it. But I think it's worth distinguishing free speech (political speech) from commercial speech, though the two may overlap.... which is why I'm glad rah raised the point.
Posted by: carrie | Aug 22, 2005 8:33:06 PM
