More Political Correctness Idiocy From The Golden State

[dales]

The Volokh Conspiracy|opinion



California bans painting of Civil War battle from County Fair art show, because painting includes Confederate battle flag

By Eugene Volokh

September 1 at 11:04 AM 


“The Attack,” by Timothy Desmond, as filed in court.

California Government Code § 8195 provides that “The State of California may not sell or display the Battle Flag of the Confederacy, also referred to as the Stars and Bars, or any similar image, or tangible personal property, inscribed with such an image unless the image appears in a book, digital medium, or state museum that serves an educational or historical purpose.” Read narrowly, this would be constitutional: The California Legislature is generally free to decide what speech the state engages in.

But it looks as though the state is now reading this as prohibiting even the display of private citizens’ paintings in venues such as County Fair art shows, and even in a context where basically all other submissions are displayed (so that the government isn’t just selecting a few paintings for display because it thinks they are the best). A lawsuit filed by the Center for Individual Rights argues that this violates the First Amendment:


Plaintiff [Timothy Desmond] is a resident of Fresno County …. Plaintiff is both an artist and a civil war buff. In 2015, Plaintiff created a painting called The Attack, which depicts a scene from the 1864 Siege of Atlanta. The painting included several individuals carrying flags, one of which was the Second National Confederate States flag used at times by the Confederacy.

The Big Fresno Fair … is operated by … under the authority of … the California Department of Food and Agriculture. Among other activities, the Fair displays artwork, including paintings, and the Department of Food and Agriculture prescribes regulations for the Fair, including the judging of exhibits. Any resident of Fresno County may submit a painting for display….

Plaintiff has submitted artwork in the past for display at the Fair. Plaintiff submitted The Attack to the 2015 Fair for display, and was later told that he should pick up The Attack because it could not be displayed with other artwork at the Fair. Theodore Scribner, the director of the fine arts program for the Fair, told Plaintiff that the painting could not be displayed under a California law that prohibited the state from displaying the Confederate flag.

When Plaintiff picked up the painting, … the Exhibits and Concessions Manager of the Fair[] told him that the Fair had received a written notice from the State Fairs and Exposition Branch the previous June stating that the law in question prohibited the display of any artwork that included the Confederate flag, and that she had confirmed that prohibition with the office of the Attorney General. She also told Plaintiff that had the painting been deemed worthy of an award by the judges, he would have received it despite the fact that the Attack was not displayed.

Plaintiff wants to submit The Attack for display at the 2016 Fair. Plaintiff continues to paint and plans to create more paintings depicting civil war battles, some of which will depict flags associated with the Confederacy. He wants to submit some of these paintings to the Fair in the future for display….

read more below URL:


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... f#comments

[MajGenl.Meade]

This just in.... Colin won't stand for it

[Long Run]

In 2015, Plaintiff created a painting called The Attack, which depicts a scene from the 1864 Siege of Atlanta.

With this ill breeze from the San Joaquin he should rename it Gone with the Whine.

[Scooter]

I don't think it is an unreasonable interpretation of "the State...may not sell or display" to include a venue owned by the state, at an event organized by an entity controlled by the state, where exhibits are subject to state-wide rules set down by the Department of Agriculture. The art exhibition is as much sponsored by the state as it would be if it were displayed in the state capitol. Would there be any doubt in that case that the law prohibits displaying that flag? This isn't a street corner where the First Amendment gives someone the right to stand there and wave a Confederate flag. The !st Amendment prohibits the restriction of speech by the state, it does not require the state to provide the speaker with a megaphone and an audience.

[Econoline]

Why wouldn't this painting--as a depiction of an actual historical event--come under the "educational or historical purpose" exception?

[Scooter]

...unless the image appears in a book, digital medium, or state museum that serves an educational or historical purpose.

[Bicycle Bill]

Kellogg's should move from Michigan to California. There seems to be an unlimited supply of flakes and nuts out there.

Seriously, what's next?  Banning the display of, say, Leutze's "Washington Crossing the Delaware" painting or an exhibit of Matthew Brady's Civil War photographs because the venue prohibits weapons and the pictures shows images of guns?  And don't say it couldn't happen.  Kids have already been suspended from school for biting a Pop-Tart into the shape of a gun as well as for making the shape of a gun with their fingers (example one — example two).

-"BB"-