U.S. Rep. Wm. Lacy Clay (D-MO) and David Pulphus, the young artist whose work he displayed at the U.S. Capitol, are still fighting a legal battle against the Architect of the Capitol, who removed the painting depicting police as animals after complaints from others in Congress. Now, Clay and his constituent are receiving some legal help from non-profit art advocates.
The controversy resulted from an art display in the Capitol building in which congressmen chose a work from their district to display. Clay chose the painting “Untitled #1” by Pulphus, then a student at Cardinal Ritter College Prep High School. Pulphus’ work depicted an allegorical post-Ferguson street scene including police officers with the heads of boars and wolves.
The painting hung in the Capitol for seven months before Republican congressmen took notice. They successfully argued for its removal, saying the contest rules prohibited works depicting “subjects of contemporary political controversy” or of “sensationalistic or gruesome nature.”
In response, Clay sued Architect of Capitol Stephen Ayers for the right to restore the painting to the Capitol. After a defeat in the lower courts, the case is progressing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Seventeen arts and advocacy organizations have filed an amicus brief supporting the opinion that Pulphus’ First Amendment rights were violated.
In a statement, attorney Mark Sableman of the Volunteer Lawyers and Accountants for the Arts said the exhibit does not fall under the heading of government speech, which can be censored at the government’s will.
“Our brief points out the inherent expressive freedom when art works are displayed in exhibitions,” Sableman said. “Even when a government entity is involved in exhibiting or making available selections of expressive works, viewpoint censorship should be forbidden. The Supreme Court has made this clear with books in public school libraries, and the same principle should apply to art in public exhibitions.”
The brief also said Ayers’ logic for removing the painting was not applied consistently.
“He removed the work from the exhibit, effectively resulting in what is known as a heckler’s veto,” the VLAA said in its statement. “Other works addressing race relations and the treatment of African-Americans by law enforcement remained on view.”
Other organizations signing onto the legal defense fund include Americans for the Arts, College Art Association of America, Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, Free Speech Coalition and the Index on Censorship.
“I greatly appreciate the strong and principled support of the St. Louis Lawyers and Accountants for the Arts and the other amici as they join my efforts to defend the First Amendment rights of my talented young constituent, David Pulphus,” Clay said. “We are confident that the Court of Appeals will eventually vindicate not only David’s legal rights, but will also reaffirm that freedom of speech is protected everywhere, including the U.S. Capitol.”
