 |
|
|
Updated: 2:43 PM Apr 22, 2008
Sparks Pays Artist $250,000 to Settle First Amendment Case
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.
Posted: 2:15 PM Apr 22, 2008 |
|
3 Comments 
KOLO Features
 |
Northern Nevada Jobs Find great local jobs here! |
 |
Pro Football Picks Play the Pro Football Game and win cash and prizes from the Peppermill each week! |
 |
Coupons, Click Here! Find great deals here! |
 |
Stay-Cations Find a Stay-Cation close to home! |
 |
HDTV Information Everything you need to know about the Digital TV Transition. |
 |
Win Tickets to the Nutcracker Enter to win a family 4 pack to see the performance of the Sparks Hometowne Nutcracker! |
| KOLO Online Poll |
| KOLO AP Online Videos |
|
|
| KOLO Blogs |
| Covering Rural Nevada Alone pat 6 - 2 Comments Posted |
| Covering Rural Nevada Alone part 5 - Post Your Comments! |
| "The Home of the Free?" I don't think so! - Post Your Comments! |
| Covering Rural Nevada Alone part 4 - Post Your Comments! |
| Covering Rural Nevada part 3 - 1 Comments Posted |
| More Blogs >>> |
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?
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.
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.