


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 (8)
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.
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!"
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.
This country is going to hell in a handbasket!
So, a paint store can not paint the building that they are in since it is a product they are selling?
W.T.F.?
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,
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,
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
Post a Comment
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.
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!"
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.
This country is going to hell in a handbasket!
So, a paint store can not paint the building that they are in since it is a product they are selling?
W.T.F.?
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,
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,
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
Post a Comment