Speech by Government Employees
ArtSpitzer at AOL.COM
Fri Jan 2 13:20:09 PST 1998
In a message dated 1/2/98 12:52:12 PM, Rick Duncan wrote:
>I have a question for Art Spitzer. When Judge Glasser displays his
>print of Piss Christ in his courtroom, is it your view that an
>offended viewer has a constitutional right to require him to take it
>Maybe I'm too cynical, but if someone demanded the Serrano's removal I
>can see in my mind's eye the ACLU and People For etc. denouncing this
>as censorship and defending the print against this "narrow-minded
>attack on the public display of art." Am I wrong about this?
I hope you are wrong, for the same reason I hope Judge Moore loses his case.
I don't think a courtroom is a public forum for private speech, whether Judge
Moore's speech, Judge Glasser's speech, or the speech of our recent friend in
Michigan(?) who wanted to kill witnesses and jurors with her burning ceremony.
I think the decoration of the courtroom is an official act.
Now, what if Judge Glasser displays the Gilbert Stuart portrait of George
Washington on his courthouse wall, and the local NAACP objects because Ol'
George was a slaveholder? Or (to take a real-world example), what if a Muslem
group objects to what it views as the blasphemous depiction of Mohammed on the
frieze in the Supreme Court chamber? This switches us to our Leader's new
thread, "Blasphemy by government officials," where we should perhaps continue
the discussion, inasmuch as he has cautioned us that this thread has become
More information about the Religionlaw