The Issue: Displaying Art in Publicly Owned Spaces
When it comes to free speech, all public properties are not created equal. Taxpayers own the courthouse just as much as they own the park, but the right to freely express themselves in the two locations differs significantly. Public streets, sidewalks, and parks have been classified by the courts as “traditional” public forums. By custom, these areas are places of discussion, debate, and protest. In a traditional public forum, governments must prove there is a significant governmental interest behind any regulation that restricts expression. Further, such regulations generally may only address content-neutral aspects of expression: the time, place, or manner messages are conveyed rather than the content of messages.
Not so with the courthouse or other public properties deemed to be "non-public" forums. In these locations, the government has far greater discretion in regulating the expression that may take place and, more specifically, the artwork that adorns the walls. Although such regulations may not be directed at suppressing a particular viewpoint, the government need merely prove there is a legitimate, rather than a significant, governmental interest behind the regulation. If the government states an interest which it traditionally has the right to pursue, the interest is considered legitimate. The government then only has to put forth a rational basis for thinking the regulation will help to serve its goal--a legal standard very easy to meet.
The Case: Claudio v. U.S.
In 1992, artist Dayton Claudio filed for and received a permit under the Public Buildings Cooperative Use Act (PBCUA) to display a piece in the lobby of a federal building in Raleigh, North Carolina. Congress passed PBCUA in 1976 directing the federal government to “encourage the public use of public buildings for cultural, educational, or recreational activities.” Such “cultural activities” included “fine art exhibits.” Though he espouses no particular position in the abortion debate, Claudio painted “Sex, Laws, and Coathangers” to raise awareness of the issue. Claudio had displayed artwork in the Raleigh federal building several times before but soon after first displaying “Sex, Laws, and Coathangers," his permit was revoked. Steven Grant, the administrator who revoked the permit, told Claudio that his painting was “controversial,” “political,” and likely to offend North Carolina U.S. Senator Jesse Helms. Claudio sued, arguing that none of the reasons given offered a constitutionally permissible justification for denying the permit. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina ruled that the lobby of the Raleigh building was a non-public forum and, as such, the government could prohibit the display of such a “gory and graphic” painting, as long as it did so without specific prejudice against a particular viewpoint. Without explaining why, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the lower court ruling.
http://www.tjcenter.org/ArtOnTrial/publicspaces.html
Sex, Laws & Coathangers
(9' x 12' mixed media)
by
Dayton Claudio
