Sparks Pays Artist $250,000 to Settle First Amendment Case
On Friday, June 12th at 5:00am, KOLO-TV completed the transition to digital television. Viewers who receive KOLO-TV with an antenna over the air will likely need to rescan their converter boxes or Digital TV’s at that time. If after rescanning, you still cannot receive KOLO, click here to fill out a form which will be directed to our engineers.
Sparks Pays Artist $250,000 to Settle First Amendment Case Save Email Print
Posted: 2:15 PM Apr 22, 2008
Last Updated: 2:43 PM Apr 22, 2008

A | A | A

SPARKS, Nev. (AP) - The Sparks City Council has agreed to pay $250,000 to a street artist who sued the city five years ago over a
violation of his First Amendment rights.

The council voted 4-1 on Monday to approve the settlement with San Francisco artist Steven White and his attorneys, Terri Keyser-Cooper and Diane Vaillancourt. The amount covers attorney fees and damages, said assistant city attorney Tom Riley.

The vote came hours after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the city's appeal of a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling in favor of White.

The case stems from 2003 when White sued the city over an ordinance that prohibited him from setting up his easel on the sidewalks and parks in the city and selling his paintings without a license.

City officials said the settlement ultimately saves the city about $80,000 from what the claim was expected to total. The council had rejected an opportunity to settle the case in January for $200,000 while appeals were still pending.

U.S. District Judge David Hagen in Reno ruled that the city's ordinance infringed on White's constitutional rights under the First Amendment.

The city appealed Hagen's decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and a three-judge panel ruled in White's favor last August.

"So long as it is an artist's self-expression, a painting will be protected under the First Amendment, because it expresses the artist's perspective," Judge Betty B. Fletcher said in the majority opinion. "White's paintings, which communicate his vision of the sanctity of nature, do more than propose a commercial transaction and therefore are not commercial speech."

The ruling made clear that not all artwork was protected, saying, "We expressly reserve the question whether all paintings merit First Amendment protection. We are not asked to decide the protection accorded to paintings that are copies of another artist's work or paintings done in an art factory setting where the works are mass-produced by the artist or others."

Council members John Mayer, Phil Salerno, Ron Smith and Mike Carrigan voted for the settlement. Councilman Ron Schmitt was opposed.

(Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

More Stories
Pilot Dies in South Lake Tahoe Plane Crash

Lyon County Sheriff’s Office: Missing Boy Presumed Dead

Police Search for Suspect in Stabbing; Reward Offered

Former NFL QB McNair Shot To Death

Holiday Fireworks Accidents Kill 5 Workers

Hundreds at Funerals for Two Victims of SC Killings

Crews Checking for Mosquitoes at Foreclosed Homes

SKorea Says NKorean Missiles Can Hit Key Targets

Post Your Comments
First Name:
Location:
Enter Comments: characters left
Email (optional):
By posting this comment I have read and agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy:
You must agree to the Terms of Service to continue.
Read Comments
Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
Posted by: Darlene Location: Reno on Apr 21, 2009 at 11:52 AM
I must have missed something. The original charge as listed was apparently violating an ordinance prohibiting Steven setting up his easel on the sidewalks and parks in Sparks and selling his paintings without a license. "So long as it is an artist's self-expression, a painting will be protected under the First Amendment, because it expresses the artist's perspective," Judge Betty B. Fletcher said in the majority opinion. "White's paintings, which communicate his vision of the sanctity of nature, do more than propose a commercial transaction and therefore are not commercial speech." Did the judges even address the license? Or is there more to the story than what you are sharing with the public??? Otherwise this makes no sense as there seems to be two different issues being addressed and neither on of them has been resolved. So he can still sell his paintings without a license in the city of Sparks?

Posted by: G.Travous Location: St. Augustine, FL on May 2, 2008 at 11:18 AM
The free speech issue is paramount here. This last statement reflects a complete lack of thought toward the bigger issue.Most citizens would not call a street artist a panhandler.

Posted by: TCFEDUP Location: SPARKS on Apr 22, 2008 at 08:55 PM
SINCE WHEN DOES VIOLATING A CITY ORDINENCE MERIT THE PROTECTION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. I GUESS IF THE 9TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS LIKES THE STYLE OF ART YOU GET TO BREAK WHAT EVER LAW YOU WANT. 1/4 MILLION DOLLARS PLUS SPENT TRYING TO COLLECT A FINE FROM A SO CALLED "ARTIST", I WOULD CALL THEM A PANHANDLER. WHAT DID THEY DO WITH THE ORGAN AND DANCING MONKEY?I HOPE THE CITY CONSULTED WITH THE PROPER SPEACIAL INTEREST GROUP TO MAKE SURE THEY DID NOT STEP ON THE MONKEYS 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

KOLO Features
Northern Nevada Jobs
Find great local jobs here!
Coupons, Click Here!
Find great deals here!
Win a luxurious mattress set!
Enter to win today!
Stay-Cations
Find a Stay-Cation close to home!
HDTV Information
Everything you need to know about the Digital TV Transition.
Northern Nevada Medical Center
KOLO Online Poll
Are you leaving town to celebrate the 4th?

Yes
No


KOLO AP Online Videos
KOLO Blogs
Mistakes Happen, Decisions are Made! - Post Your Comments!
Help Murder Victim's Family this SATURDAY - 1 Comments Posted
Forget Michael Vick! - 8 Comments Posted
Welcome Back Carter - 1 Comments Posted
A Warning from Firefighters - 2 Comments Posted
More Blogs >>>
Stock Quotes
QUOTES
    Symbol Lookup