And I’ll add that towns/cities often lack the budget of states and private companies; they often have to be more judicious with their expenses. Plus, banning specifically art flies in the face of the constitutional right to freedom of expression. A universal ban on art to prevent LGBTQ art is no less unconstitutional.
Needless to say, this would turn ugly and costly if they decided to pursue it.
The article makes it sound like it’s only banning permanent art on city (public) property. Citizens have no right to place their own permanent art on public property.
I’m pretty sure they have a limited ability to regulate permanent displays on private property (i.e. probably only obscene or hate speech or the like).
And I’ll add that towns/cities often lack the budget of states and private companies; they often have to be more judicious with their expenses. Plus, banning specifically art flies in the face of the constitutional right to freedom of expression. A universal ban on art to prevent LGBTQ art is no less unconstitutional.
Needless to say, this would turn ugly and costly if they decided to pursue it.
The article makes it sound like it’s only banning permanent art on city (public) property. Citizens have no right to place their own permanent art on public property.
I’m pretty sure they have a limited ability to regulate permanent displays on private property (i.e. probably only obscene or hate speech or the like).