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).
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).