Sparks Pays Artist $250,000 to Settle First Amendment Case
Sign up today for breaking news and weather text alerts!
Save Email Print
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
Font Size:

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.)


Latest Comments

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 8 News Now on Facebook
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
What do you think about Oprah ending her talk show?

It is about time
I wish it would never end
I couldn’t care less
Should have ended about 23 years ago


Share Your Thoughts With Us!

Read the full story here
Northern Nevada Medical Center
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 >>>
Stock Quotes
QUOTES
    Symbol Lookup