Minneapolis v. ACLU (2015)
Opinion of the Court: Bradley May 2013 saw the arrival of an exhibit to the Minneapolis Institute of Art. The exhibit contents featured were A)photos of nude men and women depicted in a variety of poses, B) photos of adults engaged in various sexual activities, and C) pictures of several nude men standing very close to one another. Finally, there were several pictures that resembled recent advertisements by a famous clothes designer. This last set of photos portrayed D) teenage children dressed in very little clothing, who were also placed in allegedly “erotic” poses. Sections C and D were deemed in violation of several Minneapolis and Minnesota statutes on decency and subsequently struck from public view in the …show more content…
This is where the problem arises for the Minnesota Statute does not account for any artistic considerations, but the precedent of the court does. The exhibit in question has the intended purpose of being art. It is being featured in an upstanding museum and the parts that are being censored are just two sections of an entire display. Today, we must consider the sections in question as parts of an entire exhibit and deem whether that exhibit should be allowed to be viewed in its entirety. It can be concluded that if the Minneapolis stature and the Minnesota statute found no fault in the first two sections of the exhibit, then the second to sections cannot be judged separately and stricken from the work. It is at the discretion of the artist and the museum to decide how the work is showcased and if all the pieces are supposed to be shown together then they shall be shown, or the entire exhibited should be prohibited from being viewed. Earlier standards allowed material to be judged in part to the effect of the isolated excerpt on those who would be susceptible to it. Regina v. Hicklan. This is no longer the standard, but this appears to be what The City Commission on Decency has done. In Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton the court held “in the absence of distribution to juveniles or obtrusive exposure to un-consenting ageless, the First and Fourteenth amendments prohibit the state and federal governments from attempting wholly suppress sexually oriented materials on the basis of they 're allegedly obscene." By removing what would be one half of an exhibit from public view, they end up wholly suppressing the
Opinion of the Court: Bradley May 2013 saw the arrival of an exhibit to the Minneapolis Institute of Art. The exhibit contents featured were A)photos of nude men and women depicted in a variety of poses, B) photos of adults engaged in various sexual activities, and C) pictures of several nude men standing very close to one another. Finally, there were several pictures that resembled recent advertisements by a famous clothes designer. This last set of photos portrayed D) teenage children dressed in very little clothing, who were also placed in allegedly “erotic” poses. Sections C and D were deemed in violation of several Minneapolis and Minnesota statutes on decency and subsequently struck from public view in the …show more content…
This is where the problem arises for the Minnesota Statute does not account for any artistic considerations, but the precedent of the court does. The exhibit in question has the intended purpose of being art. It is being featured in an upstanding museum and the parts that are being censored are just two sections of an entire display. Today, we must consider the sections in question as parts of an entire exhibit and deem whether that exhibit should be allowed to be viewed in its entirety. It can be concluded that if the Minneapolis stature and the Minnesota statute found no fault in the first two sections of the exhibit, then the second to sections cannot be judged separately and stricken from the work. It is at the discretion of the artist and the museum to decide how the work is showcased and if all the pieces are supposed to be shown together then they shall be shown, or the entire exhibited should be prohibited from being viewed. Earlier standards allowed material to be judged in part to the effect of the isolated excerpt on those who would be susceptible to it. Regina v. Hicklan. This is no longer the standard, but this appears to be what The City Commission on Decency has done. In Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton the court held “in the absence of distribution to juveniles or obtrusive exposure to un-consenting ageless, the First and Fourteenth amendments prohibit the state and federal governments from attempting wholly suppress sexually oriented materials on the basis of they 're allegedly obscene." By removing what would be one half of an exhibit from public view, they end up wholly suppressing the