Minneapolis Institute Of Art Case Summary

City of Minneapolis v. ACLU, Justice Carstensen, Opinion of the Court
In today’s case, we are looking at the supposed obscenity of an art exhibit in the Minneapolis Institute of Art (MIA) and supposed violations of free speech. This art exhibit contained various photographs, including what has been described as “substantially lewd or indecent” under certain Minnesota statutes. With this case, we have a divided court and a variety of issues with both sides of the arguments. In this case, the ACLU is attempting to say that their clients’ freedom of speech rights have been violated with the restraint of these pieces of an exhibit. We tend to disagree and side with the City of Minneapolis, in part. For the issue of freedom of speech infringements, we believe that the rights of the 17-year old senior have not been violated, and that the freedom of speech rights of the artist himself were violated in part, pertaining the restraint of one of the pieces of the exhibit.
The exhibit was put up in May of 2013, an exhibit came to the Minneapolis Institute of Art. It had four main sections. It had A) photos of naked men and women depicted in a variety of poses, B) photos engaged in various sexual activities, C) several nude men “standing very close to one another”, and some others that resembled advertisements from a famous

Yoder. You will remember that in Yoder that we allowed a parent to have their child to stop attending school after the 8th grade. We as the Court do not know your child, nor do we say that we do. If a parent wants to take their child to the art exhibit, we cannot constitutionally deny them the right to do so. Parents are allowed to take their children to R-rated movies, when they have their parent’s permission, this is already allowed in our society, even with the raunchiest of movies. The same logic should be applied towards this