65
edits
Latin American Advisory Council: Difference between revisions
m
no edit summary
(Created page with "{{Display censorship incident |ongoing=no |year=1974 |region=North America |artist=Commissioned Muralist |subject=Political/Economic/Social Opinion |confronting_bodies=Blue Is...") |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|date_of_action=November 1974 | |date_of_action=November 1974 | ||
|location=Blue Island, Illinois | |location=Blue Island, Illinois | ||
|description_of_content=A mural, painted on the exterior wall of a restaurant, that depicts the struggles of Mexican-American laborers | |description_of_content=A mural, painted on the exterior wall of a restaurant, that depicts the struggles of Mexican-American laborers | ||
|description_of_incident=The Latin American Advisory Council, a community organization that promotes Hispanic culture in Blue Island (Illinois), leased an exterior wall of a restaurant to an artist. Town officials complained that the proposed mural could be recognized as a sign under city ordinance, and thus, was | |description_of_incident=The Latin American Advisory Council, a community organization that promotes Hispanic culture in Blue Island (Illinois), leased an exterior wall of a restaurant to an artist. Town officials complained that the proposed mural could be recognized as a sign under city ordinance, and thus, was prohibited from being on display in the designated location | ||
|description_of_result=In court, Judge Austin ruled in favor of the LAAC, noting that the ordinance ought to apply to only commercial signs, not to forms of communication--like murals-- that "seek to portray an idea." According to Judge Austin, the mural, no matter how large (this was the quality of the mural that was initially contested), was protected by the First Amendment | |description_of_result=In court, Judge Austin ruled in favor of the LAAC, noting that the ordinance ought to apply to only commercial signs, not to forms of communication--like murals-- that "seek to portray an idea." According to Judge Austin, the mural, no matter how large (this was the quality of the mural that was initially contested), was protected by the First Amendment | ||
}} | }} | ||