Judge says he won't rush decision on Maine mural

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press

Judge says he won't rush decision on Maine mural

Tuesday, April 19, 2011 BANGOR, Maine -- A federal judge on Tuesday questioned why he should rush to a decision on whether a mural depicting Maine's labor history should be put back on display as a federal lawsuit targeting the governor's decision to remove the artwork plays out in court.

Gov. Paul LePage sparked an uproar last month when he ordered the removal of the 36-foot-long mural from a Labor Department office in Augusta. The Republican governor said it presented a one-sided view of history.

An organized labor representative, a workplace safety official, three artists and an attorney sued, contending that LePage violated their First Amendment right of access to the artwork.

They asked Judge John Woodcock to order the multi-paneled art returned at once. Jeff Young, an attorney for the plaintiffs, told the judge that people who visit the state office where the mural was housed "are suffering irreparable injury" because their free speech rights to see it are being abridged.



Read more: http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/ap/april/235088/Judge-says-he-wont-rush-decision-on-Maine-mural

---

http://bdn.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com.nyud.net:8090/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/1256181404_8eee.jpg

Judge John Woodcock

[ProgressiveProfessor]

1. While I disagree with the action, the concept behind the lawsuit is inane

[Tesha]

2. Since you're a "progressive", what would you have done? (NT)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

6. Worked to make sure the turkey was never in office...

I see no legal requirement for all govt owned art to be on public display at all times. The bubbas in charge notionally get to choose what is on public display. What is displayed in the White House and other Federal buildings changes with administrations, if not more often.

[jwirr]

8. They do get to choose what is in their own offices but I am not sure

we should extend that to the art which taxpayers paid for. The labor department paid for this mural on the condition it was to be displayed in that office.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

12. You imply a contract for displayThat is a different issue that the one that was filed.

There are prior news items about public areas, not just private offices having the displays changed. Happens often enough that it is rarely if ever newsworthy

[plumbob]

3. The concept is sound, and why the judge is going to be careful.

We paid for it. It's ours. It's an expression, therefore speech. Any speech we pay for, we should see.

So classified secrets must be brought to light. We paid for it, it's speech, and we should see it.

Most dangerous lawsuit to the USKGB yet.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. Various government bodies have more art that can be displayed

It is not an irreparable infringement that all of it is not on display all of the time. That is what I consider ridiculous

[plumbob]

9. You're entitled to any opinion you like. Me, too.

Are you a judge or an attorney? Because a district judge suggested this idea to me.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

13. I am sure one did, but I would bet they were being humorous or sarcastic

Are you one of the plaintiffs?

[plumbob]

15. Nope, just an interested bystander. The judge is a college friend of mine

from long ago.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

4. What's your reasoning?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. Try this

- The government has more art that it can put on public display at any one time
- There is no legal mandate that all government art be on public display
- There is no precedent for irreparable damage claims being upheld because
a particular piece of government owned art is not on public display
- The art displayed in Federal buildings including the White House changes
with administrations and often more frequently. Same with the states.

It was tacky, it was offensive to do it, it may energize people to vote him out of office, but it is not doing irrevocable harm

[greiner3]

10. I would say it is doing harm;

In that the art work is in a place where it may 'disappear,' become damaged or other mischievous happenings.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

11. Could that not be said of any undisplayed art? Is not art on public display at more risk of damage?

[IamK]

14. which ever side can say "Judge Woodcock" with a straight face should win....