BANGOR, Maine — The fate of a 36-foot mural depicting Maine’s labor history is now in the hands of a federal judge.
U.S. District Judge John Woodcock will decide whether the artwork is government speech or private speech under the First Amendment in a lawsuit filed last year over the removal of the mural at the behest of Gov. Paul LePage.
The lawsuit claims that LePage violated the mural artist’s constitutional right to free speech when he ordered the mural removed from state Labor Department’s offices last March. LePage had it removed because he considered it biased in favor of organized labor over business interests, according to previously published reports.
Woodcock heard oral arguments Thursday on the state’s motion for summary judgment. If the judge rules in the state’s favor, the case would be dismissed. If he rules for the plaintiffs — three artists, an attorney and two people who have said they regularly visit the Department of Labor building — the case would go to trial.
Deputy Attorney General Paul Stern argued that because the state, during Gov. John Baldacci’s administration, originated the theme, picked Judy Taylor to be the artist, accepted her proposal for the work, reviewed the art as it was being formed and paid $60,000 for it in 2008, the mural is government speech.
Jonathan Beal of Portland, who represented the plaintiffs, said the Tremont artist, who is not a party in the lawsuit, submitted an affidavit to the court stating that she was not guided by the parameters outlined in the call for artistic proposals while she was creating the work.
“The state must express its own ideas for it to be government speech,” Beal told Woodcock. “Just because art is paid for by the state does not make it government speech.”
“By your logic, every time the government commissions works of art, it’s never government speech, it’s always an expression of the artist’s creativity,” Woodcock said.
The judge expressed concern that whenever there is a change of administration and a piece of art were to be removed, a federal lawsuit could be filed.
“Are there enough judges and lawyers in the state to handle that?” Woodcock asked.
Beal told Woodcock that he did not think there would be a spate of lawsuits over artwork.
“This is a one-time event brought on by the intemperate actions by a governor, which caused understandable political and artistic reaction,” Beal said. “I think there are already regulations in place to allow for the orderly resolution of disputes about the public showing of art owned by state.”
He also said that artwork such as the mural is actually owned by the Maine State Museum, which has a procedure for removing it that LePage did not follow. If the case survives summary judgment, that could be an issue to be decided by a jury.
“It is totally unnecessary to have a trial,” Stern countered.
He said the lawsuit was a political move to discredit the governor.
“The plaintiffs really resent the state constantly saying this is part of a political campaign,” Beal said. “I’m a Democrat, I admit it, but this is not part of a campaign.”
Outside the courthouse, Stern said the state considers the debate over the mural to be “a political question better left to the political back and forth instead of having a court decide it.”
Beal said after the hearing that his clients view the removal of the mural as “censorship by the state based on a political viewpoint that they attribute to the mural.
“In fact, the mural doesn’t have a political point of view,” the attorney said. “It is pro-worker, but that doesn’t make it Republican or Democrat. We would have hoped that Governor LePage and his people would not have a problem with something that is pro-worker.”
The mural features women shipbuilders during World War II, the 1986 International Paper strike in Jay, child laborers and part-time Maine resident Frances Perkins, who as President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s labor secretary was integral to the creation of a minimum wage, Social Security and other aspects of Roosevelt’s New Deal.
LePage ordered the mural removed in March 2011 because he said it presented a one-sided view of history and wasn’t in keeping with his pro-business agenda. The lawsuit was filed April 1 in U.S. District Court in Bangor.
On April 22, Woodcock denied a motion for a temporary restraining order that would have forced LePage to return the mural. The judge agreed with the governor that the removal of the mural was “a constitutionally permissible exercise of gubernatorial authority.”
The legal standard under which he denied the previous motion to issue a temporary restraining order is different from the one that he will apply to the motion for summary judgment, filed June 16, according to a previously published report.
For the previous motion, the plaintiffs had to prevail on the merits of the case and show they would suffer irreparable damages if the mural wasn’t restored. For the current motion, the plaintiffs have to show that a reasonable person would conclude that the mural represents the speech of the artist who created it, according to Beal.
There is no timeline under which Woodcock must issue a decision.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
In this case “Government speech” amounts to the ignorant ramblings of Paul LePage who can’t even get his story straight (Changed his story three times on this issue!) as to why he removed it in the first place. The funny thing is that this thing he did for nothing and has caused so much outrage is probably the clearest indication of Mr. LePage’s ability to tell the truth. The first thing we’ve all noticed as we’ve passed though life it that bad liars can’t keep their stories straight. Why? Because bad liars tend to be so stupid that they are unable to recall details of all their previous lies. Thus the changes in story each time they speak. If U.S. District Judge John Woodcock sides with a bad liar it will surely be the low point in an otherwise outstanding career. I’d like to think he’d make the right decision but I also think that O.J. is a killer, so who knows? Anything can happen in America and this could turn out as a low point for us all.
And there’s the issue of tax dollars wasted paying state lawyers to defend LePage’s silliness, and judges to decide the case. Thousands of tax dollars that we don’t have, wasted on his ego. Like sending him, his wife, and his entourage to DC to NOT attend important meetings. He doesn’t blink when it comes to wasting taxes on his personal agendas or enjoyment.
Think we had a Dem in office for 8 years who didn’t think much about spending money.They are all to blame . And the people are to blame for approving all these bond issues. Is there anyone out there that thinks we do not have to repay these loans? sure seems like it at the polls!
No argument there, you’re right. Baldacci balanced his budget by not paying the States bills, and it seems like every bond issue passes, no matter how ridiculous it seems. We’ve borrowed hundreds of millions for highway improvement over the years and everything is still in crappy condition. That doesn’t excuse Lepages mismanagement and selfishness though.
Wouldn’t have to be spending taxpayer dollars if leftie loonie artists and people who go into the labor dept. building didn’t bring the suit in the first place. Sell the mural, it is awful anyway. $60,ooo, more than many who post on this forum will ever pay in income taxes, already absolutely flushed down the toidy. Now because of leftie loonies more money will be wasted. I hope their mommas will be proud. By the way, the State can’t pay its bills
Yeah, that’s a good defense for LePage’s actions. Let him do whatever he wants because it costs the State if anyone disagrees with him. You didn’t address the wasted tax money sending him and his staff and wife to D.C. for dinner. Anything to say about that, especially since “the State can’t pay its bills”? I wonder how much that trip cost us, for him not to attend meetings or do anything to aid Maine?
Good night nurse, do you think that the artist has a constitutional right to have her works displayed in the labor department’s building forever? Isn’t that the basis of the lawsuit? If we can’t sell it and recoup at least some of the wasted money spent on this propaganda piece, I propose that the magnanimous people of the state of Maine loan the “work” to the AFSCME or AFL-CIO to display in their lobbies, where it would be seen by those who would appreciate its partisan images.
Still don’t want to talk about the wasted tax money for the LePage vacation to D.C.? I don’t care about the mural one way or the other, but it wasn’t hurting anything hanging there, nobody else had a problem with it. I thought it portrayed the working history of Maine men and women through our history in a positive light, but that’s a personal opinion. Now the State has to spend tax money to defend LePages position on a “nothing” issue. I don’t even particularly care that he took it down and hid it, and wouldn’t tell anyone where it was. A little childish, but that’s his mentality anyway.
O.K., you win, you win. Traveling for business is not a vacation, but perhaps not the best use of our taxpayer dollars. I ask that you admit, as Uncledrinky has, that the mural shows a pro labor bias, which is O.K., but not O.K. in the labor department building, which is supposed to be neutral in labor-management relations. Why not loan it permanently to the AFSCME or AFL-CIO to display in their lobbies, where those of a like mind will like to see it?
talk about ignorant ramblings…..
John Woodcock is a die hard Republican. The verdict is a forgone conclusion.
For some crazy reason, I think you don’t respect the democratically-elected governor of Maine, Mr. Cutler. How are things in China? Please, BDN moderator, have the guts to leave this satire posted.
“…….. mural is actually owned by the Maine State Museum”.
Problem solved ……………. put the “Organized Labor Mural” (Unions) where it should have been in the first place ………………… in the Museum.
And that solves…….what?
The government is claiming that it has the rights of a citizen. Government is supposed to protecting citizen’s rights, and government gets it’s authority from citizens, government is not designed to be proclaimating citizens rights…..if that were the case, why can’t citizen’s proclaim that government has no authority, considering, as their argument, they are the same?
Didn’t Nobama remove a bust from the White House that belonged to the people of the US of A and send it back to England?
Obama returned a bust of Winston Churchill to the government of Britain, which had loaned it in 2001 to George W Bush. It was never the property of the US or its people. Obama replaced it with a bust of Abraham Lincoln. This is just another one of those hundreds of false right wing nut rumors in an effort of disrespect, since they cannot come up with valid solutions to the real problems, such as jobs.
In case you didn’t know, every President since George Washington has had the White House decorated according to their own likes, not those of their predecessors.
Oh, those darn facts again. What is a wing nut to do?
lie or ignore reality ?
I don’t know about Obama but I quess Clinton got in trouble for handling a bust!
I think he handled more than a bust. Ugh.
Read below
“The government is claiming that it has the rights of a citizen.”
*********************************************************
Therefore, you agree that “corporations are people”, too…by claiming government “rights”in forcing the myriad of other issues such as universal health care.
Do any of these fools that are wasting state money on a farce that original cost 60,000 have a job.Get over it,just another example of the waste,fraud and pocketing of Maines money from the past.Why waste more.Burn it.
More non-answers from Beal and the Democrats. It was a simple question: once a piece of art is put up, can it ever be taken down? Apparently the answer is only if the liberals approve of removing it.
There has to be a reason why the government’s only defense is that it argued a right granted to citizens, not government or”government speech”, the argument is lame.
Government is required to acknowledge freedom of speech, and respect the same. It has never been granted this right which is guaranteed to individual citizens, government is not an individual group or citizen, nor is a citizen an individual government. Government has a higher standard, government is entrusted to protect citizens rights, not proclaim them as their own.
The “government speech” defense is lame, and probably dangerous too, but it’s the plaintiffs that need to prove their case. I just don’t see how removing a painting is violating anyone’s free speech rights. If it does, then any piece of art needs to be displayed in perpetuity, which is obviously ridiculous. And that’s not to mention the limited availability of such spaces, which would by its nature prevent all people from expressing themsleves.
The government does not own the Department of Labor or it’s building, no more than the government owns the State House. The people of Maine, the citizens, own both. If the people, the citizens wish to make it a free speech argument, and the government says that it is entitled to the same, then the Plaintiff’s argument is correct. The Plaintiff is the citizens, the defendant is the government. Government has never been granted rights, government grants them and does so at our direction, not it’s own.
“The Plaintiff is the citizens…”
*********************************
In this case, not all citizens’.
But the defendant is whom? The government! who get’s it’s authority from whom? the people. The government cannot give itself rights preserved for the people.
You don’t even get a “good try”
“The government cannot give itself rights preserved for the people. ”
*********************************************
How dare you say that when progs have been pushing land takings, social legislation that steals individuals’ rights to self determination and revenue legislation which removes more and more private property from every taxpayer’s wallet for decades?
Mainers, here it is…..right in front of your eyes…..the very denial used in a bold-faced attempt to justify the inversional Progressive agenda to everything you know as good, true and beautiful.
The plaintiff is not the citizens, it’s a handful of citizens. Are you suggesting that we should display or not display artwork by referendum? The state of Maine either owns or leases the Department of Labor’s buildings. We don’t own them. We don’t maintain them. We aren’t personally or collectively liable for anything that happens there, the state of Maine is. But on to the question that’s being ignored: can a piece of artwork, once displayed, ever be removed without violating the first amendment? If your answer is yes, then why not in this particular case?
What about the contract between the artist an the state or did for get about it ?
I don’t know anything about the contract between the artist and the state. She may have a case, but she hasn’t brought it, and I don’t believe that the others have any standing to bring it.
I hope it came out in court
The mural was removed to insult a group of people that a certain troglodyte is offended by. Which immediately showed his true colors and depth. Yellow and shallow.
Ok, so we know you hate liberals, Obama, and Unions. That is fine with me. I would be more than happy with putting this to a vote, just so long as the PEOPLE get to decide, yes even you should have a say, but for ONE PENGUIN to think he owns this state because he was elected Governor and can do anything he likes regardless of the constitution is preposterous. I think if you look deep enough, even you can see that.
How could you have possibly confused that comment with conservatism? lol.
The correct type of painting on the department of labor building’s hall is Sherman Williams beige. $60,000 plus in state and federal dollars spent on this boondoggle is the real scandal here. 15 trillion federal deficit, Maine can’t pay its hospitals and needs to cut 65,000 off the Mainecare roles. We should sell this Marxist propaganda piece to some California leftie with more cash than brains and use the funds to pay down the federal deficit and keep one or two more Mainers insured.
Or you can insure everyone and have a single payor system.
Your user name is a cheap, right wing shot at someone who has made some very valid and sapient observations in this forum. I would ask if this is the best you can do, but I know the answer.
Don’t be a hater. The BDN moderator apparently will not let me post a real rebuttal, so let me just say, you must be a very observant person. oh, and all of the occupy people are beautiful, beautiful people, you sapient you..
To end this and stop the bull lets just rehang the mural and then go to shemain-williams and get a gallon of Beige paint. and redo the canvas. Then it will match the wall.
this is hopefully Maine’s past of waste,spend and pocketing.
Please Please Please find in the way of the three artists…There is nothing more that i would love to see than the Penguin himself on a witness stand, trying aimlessly to defend is egomaniacal way of thinking….Shame on you Paul Lepage..
Does he smell like fish?
The Governor speaks for the people because he was elected by the people.
The peoples fundamental interest in their property is subject to the despicable whims of every oily Idi Amin type penguin who comes along and fancies himself the states maximum leader. penguins rush in where angles fear to waddle.
Going out on a limb here. Bet you didn’t vote for the Governor. lol
How do those who did vote for him, and his promises justify him wasting $60,000 of the State’s money, before the court costs ?
Hang on there young man.
Many of us feel it was Prince Johnny who wasted the $60,000.
As a general matter, most Legislatures cannot bind over another Legislature, just as LePage threwout Baldi’s silly Executive Order making Maine the only Sanctuary State in the nation.
Much of what LePage decides can simply be overturned by the next Governor and Legislature.
bare walls ?
How could you tell? His ability to spell? His ability to form complete sentences?
“where angles fear to waddle”
Why are you so angry?
So that makes him an art critic ?
No. It simply makes him the Maine Governor.
You’ll have your chance, soon enough, to replace him with someone who better fits your needs.
So the Fearless Leader effectiveness and wasteful spending shall not be questioned ?
The “People” made a mistake. We wont make another one. Bye Bye Penguin!!!!
Where’s Batman when you need him?
“The plaintiffs really resent the state constantly saying this is part of a political campaign,” Beal said. “I’m a Democrat, I admit it, but this is not part of a campaign.”
Tell me this ain’t a Politcal Sign!
http://www.pressherald.com/news/maine-LePage-business-sign-I95-welcome-turnpike-.html
The open for buisness sign on the turnpike is a political sign and is in violation of State Law regarding political signs and signs on the Intersate.
http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/23/title23sec1913-A.html
“LePage ordered the mural removed in March 2011 because he said it presented a one-sided view of history and wasn’t in keeping with his pro-business agenda.”
Whose motives are purely political and venal, Your Honor ?
“The mural features women shipbuilders during World War II, the 1986 International Paper strike in Jay, child laborers and part-time Maine resident Frances Perkins, who as President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s labor secretary was integral to the creation of a minimum wage, Social Security and other aspects of Roosevelt’s New Deal.”
******************************************************************
If it was a true depiction of labor history inclusive of the history of all Maine’s laborors we would have seen images of barn builders, fishing boats and farmers…..dating back to the 1600’s. Of course, if you really mean “Labor” (exclusively) rather than “labor” (inclusively) the plaintiffs’ case takes on a definite political stench.
“… the state, during Gov. John Baldacci’s administration, originated the theme, picked Judy Taylor to be the artist, accepted her proposal for the work, reviewed the art as it was being formed and paid $60,000 for it in 2008…”
If the mural were a leftist union conspiracy there would be pictures of the Wobblies (IWW) who successfully beat the crap out of the KKK in the early 1900s.
My post was factual. Yours started with ‘If”.
So did the only non cut and paste part of your post.
The “if” I referenced was not inherently part of my post…rather, the either /or of the premise as presented by the plaintiffs.
I can only find one obscure source for your post, “Scontras Continues to Write Maine Labor History (IWW Mention)” By WILLIAM DAVID BARRY but no other source material. Would you be so kind as to post a source?
Leftist union mural? Was the KKK on it.
What a waste of time and money! I hope the judge throws it out and give every one heck.
It’s cold up here in nortemaine.
Send the mural up and we will display it at the next community bonfire.
For a few minutes, anyway.
My, aren’t you the clever one. Are you advocating the destruction of public property?
Not intentionally.
(Wink wink!)
I would donate the dogs and buns for that one
LePigee, just put it back!
Love the number of working doofuses who are supporting LIEpage and business interests against labor. Supporting the same groups who would crush them in search of a nickel. Geniuses.
Yeah…that mural was biased in favor of labor…which means it was biased in favor of Maine workers…Can’t have that now can we???
Dem po’ ol’ bosses needs all de hep dey can git.
Isn’t that a racist statement?
Uncledinky…..racist?
Say it ain’t so.
So at least one true liberal is not afraid to state the truth, that the mural was biased in favor of labor. For that admission, he deserves kudos. It still is wrong, of course, for the State to take sides in management-labor disputes.
Paint a picture of LePage and name it One of Maine’s biggest fools!!
What a freaking waste of Taxpayers money and the courts time. Find something important to do, such as use the courts to get CRIMINALS off the streets.
It’s ugly. Keep it hidden.
A mural documenting Maine’s labor history runs contrary to the Plutocratic regime’s manifesto.
The tea party edict is so much akin to another ideological order that collapsed at the end of WWII., that it’s much like a re-write of history.
Le Page is charged with removing documents, paintings, illustrations, or anything that depicts Maine workers triumphant over oppressive working conditions. Hence the war against labor and the unions that bind workers together. The tea party seeks to, and has won a major division between working people and the rich. Le Page, like Walker, and other Governors who are knuckling under the tea party banner do so at the behest of the Koch brothers – two of the richest men in the world hell bent on picking your next president with money.
I’ll bet the court will decide in Le Page’s favor and allow this man to continue to keep this mural hidden from the public.
Can not believe the job killing scum-bags are stilling whining about the union mural.