This is the official blog of MURAL (Mainers United for the Rights of Art & Labor). More than 2,500 people have joined our cause via our Facebook page (mainelabormural) and we welcome all who believe in free speech and respect for working Mainers to join our cause.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
MURAL HOSTAGE VIGIL: DAY 32
Just found this: "The mural, putting up the mural, or taking down the mural, never created a job and that’s my position"[LePage] "Hmm, the artist who was hired to paint the mural might disagree." (quoted from a comment to a blog post)
Great editorial in Portland Daily Sun today (4/28) about premature, you know, ahem, celebration of victory by Monsieur LePage.
The authors of the OpEd piece said:
"Still to be answered are the U.S. Department of Labor’s demand for the mural to be re-hung (or the Reed Act funds that paid for the mural returned), the issue of LePage’s breaching the artist contract and whether the LePage administration violated the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990." The piece also noted that any damage to the work would raise additional legal issues.
Of course, the federal court action actually referred to other breaches of the law, including violation of the administration act. The mural was selected as part of a well considered and democratic process involving representatives of the Depart of Labor and the Arts Commission. The removal was a unilateral (and we believe unauthorized and therefore illegal) act by the Governor.
Even the government speech Supreme Court case that Woodcock leans so heavily on was about a council of people making a decision during what must have been a public meeting.
2 comments:
Great editorial in Portland Daily Sun today (4/28) about premature, you know, ahem, celebration of victory by Monsieur LePage.
The authors of the OpEd piece said:
"Still to be answered are the U.S. Department of Labor’s demand for the mural to be re-hung (or the Reed Act funds that paid for the mural returned), the issue of LePage’s breaching the artist contract and whether the LePage administration violated the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990." The piece also noted that any damage to the work would raise additional legal issues.
Of course, the federal court action actually referred to other breaches of the law, including violation of the administration act. The mural was selected as part of a well considered and democratic process involving representatives of the Depart of Labor and the Arts Commission. The removal was a unilateral (and we believe unauthorized and therefore illegal) act by the Governor.
Even the government speech Supreme Court case that Woodcock leans so heavily on was about a council of people making a decision during what must have been a public meeting.
Thanks! Glad you liked the piece---'We' wrote it!
Post a Comment