Close v. Lederle
| Decision Date | 28 April 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 7477.,7477. |
| Parties | Charles CLOSE, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. John W. LEDERLE et al., Defendants, Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Walter H. Mayo, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom Robert H. Quinn, Atty. Gen., was on brief, for appellants.
Isidore Silver, Brookline, Mass., for appellee.
Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, McENTEE and COFFIN, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff, an art instructor at the University of Massachusetts, was asked by a superior if he would care to have an exhibition of his paintings on the walls of a corridor used from time to time for such purposes in the Student Union, a university building. He said that he would. The exhibition, which had been arranged for but not seen by the superior in charge, proved to be controversial. Several administrative meetings were held, attended by the university president, the provost, and other officials, and after it had been up for five of the twenty-four days scheduled, the exhibition was removed. Claiming that this was an invasion of his constitutional rights, plaintiff sued for a mandatory injunction ordering the officials to make the space available for the equivalent of the unexpired period. The district court, after trial, granted the relief and defendants appeal.
Basically, the district court held that "embarrassment" and "annoyance," causing defendants to conclude that the exhibition was "inappropriate" to the corridor, was insufficient to warrant interference with plaintiff's right of free speech. This holding was not grounded upon a finding that defendants were unreasonable in their opinion. The court refused autoptic profference of the exhibition, apparently taking the position that, at least in the absence of express regulations as to what was impermissible, defendants had no right to censor simply on the basis of offensiveness which fell short of unlawful obscenity.
We disagree. We first consider the nature and quality of plaintiff's interest. Plaintiff makes the bald pronouncement, "Art is as fully protected by the Constitution as political or social speech." It is true that in the course of holding a motion picture entitled to First Amendment protection, the Court said in Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 1952, 343 U.S. 495, at 501, 72 S.Ct. 777, at 780, 96 L.Ed. 1098 that moving pictures affect public attitudes in ways "ranging from direct espousal of a political or social doctrine to the subtle shaping of thought which characterizes all artistic expression." However, this statement in itself recognizes that there are degrees of speech.
There is no suggestion, unless in its cheap titles, that plaintiff's art was seeking to express political or social thought. Cf. People v. Radich, 26 N.Y. 114, 308 N.Y.S.2d 846, 257 N.E.2d 30. Cases dealing with students' rights to hear possibly unpopular speakers, e.g., Brooks v. Auburn University, D.Ala., 1969, 296 F.Supp. 188, aff'd 5 Cir., 412 F.2d 1171; Dickson v. Sitterson, M.D. N.C., 1968, 280 F.Supp. 486; Smith v. University of Tennessee, E.D.Tenn., 1969, 300 F.Supp. 777; Snyder v. Board of Trustees, N.D.Ill., 1968, 286 F.Supp. 927, involve a medium and subject matter entitled to greater protection than plaintiff's art.1 Even as to verbal communication the extent of the protection may depend upon the subject matter. See New York Times v. Sullivan, 1964, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686; Garrison v. Louisiana, 1964, 379 U.S. 64, 85 S.Ct. 209, 13 L.Ed.2d 125. We consider plaintiff's constitutional interest minimal.
In this posture we turn to the question whether defendants have demonstrated a sufficient counterinterest to justify their action. The corridor was a passageway, regularly used by the public, including children.2 Several of the paintings were nudes, male or female, displaying the genitalia in what was described as "clinical detail." A skeleton was fleshed out only in this particular. One painting bore the title, "I'm only 12 and already my mother's lover wants me." Another, "I am the only virgin in my school."
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rumler v. BOARD OF SCH. TR. FOR LEXINGTON CTY. DIST. NO. 1 SCHOOLS
...of plaintiffs were expressing such political or social thought as to entitle them to First Amendment protection. Close v. Lederle (CCA 1 1970), 424 F.2d 988, cert. den. 400 U.S. 903, 91 S.Ct. 141, 27 L.Ed.2d Plaintiffs are entitled to no relief under the First Amendment. IS THE REGULATION S......
-
Gay Students Org. of U. of New Hampshire v. Bonner
...Stacey v. Williams, supra, 306 F.Supp. at 975; Close v. Lederle, 303 F.Supp. 1109, 1111 (D.Mass. 1969), rev'd on other grounds, 424 F.2d 988 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 903, 91 S. Ct. 141, 27 L.Ed.2d 140 12 See Student Handbook, Pl.'s Ex. G, at 23-37. 13 I note, without deciding, the......
-
Webb v. Lake Mills Community School District
...much the same as the articulation in Keefe, Mailloux, and Parducci. See Mailloux v. Kiley, 436 F.2d 565 (1st Cir. 1971); Close v. Lederle, 424 F.2d 988 (1st Cir. 1970). Defendants assert that the Lake Mills School Board had promulgated a rule proscribing profanity or drinking scenes in scho......
-
Advocates for Arts v. Thomson, No. 75-1346
...falls short of the kind of discrimination that justifies judicial intervention in the name of the Constitution. Cf. Close v. Lederle, 424 F.2d 988 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 903, 91 S.Ct. 141, 27 L.Ed.2d 140 Affirmed. 1 See Appendix infra.2 Defendants do not contend, despite this ch......
-
Graffiti museum: a First Amendment argument for protecting uncommissioned art on private property.
...F. Supp. 165, 168-69, 184 (S.D.N.Y. 1974). (210.) 16 F.3d 145, 147 (7th Cir. 1994). (211.) Nelson, 16 F.3d at 148; cf. Close v. Lederle, 424 F.2d 988 (1st Cir. 1970) (holding that a public university could revoke permission given to an artist to exhibit a painting on school (212.) Compare C......
-
Expressive merchandise and the First Amendment in public fora.
...Bork. See generally Robert Bork, Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems, 47 IND. L.J. 1 (1971) (65.) Close v. Lederle, 424 F.2d 988, 990 (1st Cir. (66.) 515 U.S. 557, 569 (1995). (67.) Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted). (68.) Mastrovincenzo v. City of New York, 3......