Saturday, April 10, 2010

Judges as art critics.


My thanks to Irregular Ivan Denisovich for this.

6 comments:

The Inconvenience said...

I actually think the judge made the right call here. If they paint over the website it is a piece of art, otherwise it's an ad to get you to go to their website.

Anonymous said...

I'm getting really, really tired of these people:

http://local.yahoo.com/info-17669528-honorable-henry-e-autry-st-louis

TJP said...

We've yet a long way to go. The city's opinion on whether or not it is art or sign is irrelevant; a city is not one of the three sovereign entities alluded to in the Constitution.

I'm sure an examination of Missouri's constitution would likewise reveal that there was no power granted the state to "maintain aesthetic appeal" or to ensure the smooth flow of traffic.

Kevin Wilmeth said...

With all due respect, Inconvenience, is that in any way relevant?

I wrote about this a few days ago too.

Whether it's "art" or not is a red herring--another excuse for the state to exercise its power over an uppity peasant.

___________
Captcha phrase: fightsu

Bad Cyborg said...

Saw this story a coupla days ago. It reminded me of the maxim that freedom is what you can do without having to get permission. Also reminded me that property rights are the most basic rights of all.

So how free are we, really these days?

Survey says "not very".

Anonymous said...

He should make the argument that it is twelve signs placed together.