Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Why Register?
Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.

Florida Tackle-Shop Fish Mural: Ad or Art?

Recent Comments

Categories

Recent Posts

Archives

Syndicate

Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!
Add to My AOL

Field Notes
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

January 13, 2009

Florida Tackle-Shop Fish Mural: Ad or Art?

From the St. Petersburg Times:

The mural depicts a swordfish, a redfish, a grouper and a snook. The owner of a local bait and tackle shop thought it would be a cool thing to have painted on the side of his building. Now he's fighting with city officials who say it must go. . . .

"It isn't right. The city is showing a total disregard for our First Amendment rights," said Herb Quintero, owner of the Complete Angler at 705 N Fort Harrison Ave.
Check out the full story and tell us what you think.

Comments (7)

Top Rated
All Comments
from Mike Diehl wrote 3 years 18 weeks ago

The Clearwater city council wrote a 22 page ordinance defining how a sign can look? Did they write it using Egyptian hieroglyphs or something?

I read the article provided by the SP Times link. Apparently Herb Quintero sells fishing gear, not game fish. That and the absence of text tells me that the mural is art, not an advertisement, because it is a picture of fish, not of the gear used to catch fish.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from jack wrote 3 years 18 weeks ago

In other reports from local media, Quintero states he was told that if the mural was another subject matter (unrelated to his commercial purposes of selling to anglers) then the painting would not be considered a sign, but a mural and would not be regulated.

I suggest he paint a mural which states: "Clearwater sign code is stupid!"

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Charley wrote 3 years 18 weeks ago

Clearly it is a mural, not an add. We need to stick up for his first amendment right to paint a mural or even an add. If they can trample his first amendment rights then they have no respect for other amendments, like the second or the fifth.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Paul Wilke wrote 3 years 18 weeks ago

So, a paint store can not paint the building that they are in since it is a product they are selling?
W.T.F.?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from dwaynez wrote 3 years 16 weeks ago

Sounds like a crock to me, it's obvious it's art. It's just another example of a stupid ruling that has no place in our society,

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from dwaynez wrote 3 years 16 weeks ago

Sounds like a crock to me, it's obvious it's art. It's just another example of a stupid ruling that has no place in our society,

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dru Jeanis wrote 3 years 12 weeks ago

The St. Petersburg Times is reporting that the ACLU has taken the case as of 02/24/09. They also report there is a new website all about the case with background info and photos at www.keepthefish.com

+1 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

from Mike Diehl wrote 3 years 18 weeks ago

The Clearwater city council wrote a 22 page ordinance defining how a sign can look? Did they write it using Egyptian hieroglyphs or something?

I read the article provided by the SP Times link. Apparently Herb Quintero sells fishing gear, not game fish. That and the absence of text tells me that the mural is art, not an advertisement, because it is a picture of fish, not of the gear used to catch fish.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from jack wrote 3 years 18 weeks ago

In other reports from local media, Quintero states he was told that if the mural was another subject matter (unrelated to his commercial purposes of selling to anglers) then the painting would not be considered a sign, but a mural and would not be regulated.

I suggest he paint a mural which states: "Clearwater sign code is stupid!"

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Charley wrote 3 years 18 weeks ago

Clearly it is a mural, not an add. We need to stick up for his first amendment right to paint a mural or even an add. If they can trample his first amendment rights then they have no respect for other amendments, like the second or the fifth.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Paul Wilke wrote 3 years 18 weeks ago

So, a paint store can not paint the building that they are in since it is a product they are selling?
W.T.F.?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from dwaynez wrote 3 years 16 weeks ago

Sounds like a crock to me, it's obvious it's art. It's just another example of a stupid ruling that has no place in our society,

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from dwaynez wrote 3 years 16 weeks ago

Sounds like a crock to me, it's obvious it's art. It's just another example of a stupid ruling that has no place in our society,

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dru Jeanis wrote 3 years 12 weeks ago

The St. Petersburg Times is reporting that the ACLU has taken the case as of 02/24/09. They also report there is a new website all about the case with background info and photos at www.keepthefish.com

+1 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

bmxbiz-fs