Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

ACLU supports REGLIOUS expression....

RyanH

New member
Citing fundamental free speech rights, the American Civil Liberties Union today filed a lawsuit on behalf of an artist demanding that the City of Los Angeles allow his patriotic murals to remain on display.
The City of Los Angeles says that zoning rules allow them to order the removal of Mike McNeilly's patriotic mural.

A few days after the terrorist attacks September 11, artist Mike McNeilly erected a large mural entitled “9-11" with the words “God Bless America” beneath the images of a New York City firefighter, an American Flag and the face of the Statue of Liberty. The mural was erected on a privately owned building in Westwood with the consent of the building's owner.

On September 21, 2001 the City of Los Angeles issued an order asking the artist to remove the “9-11" mural. McNeilly refused.

“There is no justification for such infringements on private, noncommercial speech,” said an attorney with the ACLU of Southern California.

"This is especially true when the city not only tolerates but welcomes both commercial and noncommercial artworks of comparable size on other buildings,” he added, citing the many lively paintings on buildings lining Sunset Blvd., paintings of classical musicians next to the 110 freeway downtown, and giant-sized paintings of Shaquille O'Neill and Wilt Chamberlain on a hotel near the Staples Center.

If there is anything that we should learn from our history it is that the values that people are talking about these days - freedom and democracy - are most in jeopardy in times of crisis. Now is a time when we should be most vigilant to protect those freedoms that make this country great and that unite us as Americans.

Ryan
 
That's total public relations bullsh*t. It says a "PRIVATE BUILDING," for Christ's sakes!!!

They're still against posting signs in schools, and in court houses...

Don't be fooled, right-wingers, RyanH is merely baiting you for his later post on how bad fundamentalists are...

:D
 
Badkins21 said:
That's total public relations bullsh*t. It says a "PRIVATE BUILDING," for Christ's sakes!!!

They're still against posting signs in schools, and in court houses...

Don't be fooled, right-wingers, RyanH is merely baiting you for his later post on how bad fundamentalists are...

:D

:FRlol:
 
I understand that its a private building, but doesn't the city's position fall under "imminent domain"?

RyanH, you're the legal eagle......just curious.

I've seen my own city do some stupid shit under this clause....
 
Gilbyag and Mr. Bill, glad we finally agree on something...

What's at issue here is private property which, in my view, you should be able to do what you want to do with your own property---whether it's holding a prayer meeting, a satanic ritual, or putting a whore house on it........

Only when its public property should the government have the right to reject any form of religious expression......

Eminent domain shouldn't apply to this situation b/c the government isn't taking property here, and if zoning laws are applied, then they should be applied uniformily....In other words, the government should require other forms of expressions be removed as well...which the local government has not done.

This case is an example of the government going to far with political correctness, even religious people have their rights...

Ryan.
 
in this CASE I agree with you ryan....if the buildings owner wants it there fuck anyone who dissagrees with it...He has a right to express himself even if the city doesn't like it
 
i agree with the private property thing, but i do also think that if i want to show my religious expression i can do so in public. maybe not paint on a building, bus or whatever but if i want to speak or wear a shirt or hat then i have that right too. i mean if it offends someone that is tough aint it. i don't like those malcom X shirts people used to wear or the proud to be gay shirts but i don't think they should not be allowed to wear them. its freedom of expression. no if they get to post it on a building i will right there next to them putting up my thoughts or whatever. get it? good!
 
Top Bottom