Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

They_Live

(3,373 posts)

3. I did not see it mentioned in this article

Reply to Maine-ah (Original post)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 01:19 PM

Mar 2012

but I thought there was an issue in this case where the artist had a contract that the piece was to be exhibited for a certain amount of time (?). Or the artist retained ownership of the piece (?). and LePage was in violation of the contract by his actions. I can't remember the details, but I thought the emphasis was originally on contractual obligations and not "freedom of speech".

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

9 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Federal judge rules for LePage in lawsuit over mural removal [View all] Maine-ah Mar 2012 OP

Boo! bluedigger Mar 2012 #1

The answer is to remove LePage and restore the mural... rfranklin Mar 2012 #2

Good point!! n/t spartan61 Mar 2012 #4

I did not see it mentioned in this article They_Live Mar 2012 #3

And the voters can engage in political speech by casting a vote against LePage next time he runs. appleannie1 Mar 2012 #5

"Kiss my butt" is also "government speech" according to LePage. jpak Mar 2012 #6

You know what this reminds me of..... LynneSin Mar 2012 #7

What is "government speech"? AlbertCat Mar 2012 #8

Government speech doctrine: onenote Mar 2012 #9