Aug26
Ella Can't Catch a Break
Posted at 01:11 PM | Permalink
| 
Comments (5)
 |
Poor Ella PhantzPeril. Everywhere she tries to go, she gets a chilly reception, even though she is drop-dead gorgeous and was designed by renowned New Yorker cover artist Harry Bliss.
First, Kansas City gave her the cold shoulder when we tried to arrange for her to take up residence in a city park for a month to coincide with a visit from Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus. The city banished her because of her "political" message. Now, St. Louis has said she is unwelcome because she is an "advertisement."
Since all we want to do is remind the public about the abuse that elephants endure while constantly traveling and performing in circuses, separated from their families and their natural environment, we are crying "foul."
We say that both rejections sound an awful lot like infringements on free speech, and we're not taking them lying down.
Keep checking back, and we'll be sure to let you know when Ella finds a home.
Posted by Alisa Mullins
TAGGED:
Comments
I assume that you have people who look at this sort of thing, but I hope that the parks in Kansas City and St. Louis apply the "no political message" and "no advertising" rule to everyone. I would assume that they do to avoid lawsuits. In most places, public parks do not allow demonstrations, protests, etc. or do so only with a permit, and often permits will not be granted for something like a statue. But if they don't follow that rule for everyone...
Posted by: Abby | August 26, 2009 03:13 PM
Oops, I hadn't clicked on the link to your other notice when I posted my first comment. So temporary statues are usually allowed for political speech. The KC authorities should have known that someone would figure that out.
Posted by: Abby | August 26, 2009 03:17 PM
What one has to remember is that you are indeed posting - by using these statues - an advertisement, not a protest. If I were not looking at the blanket, I would be thinking this is for Ringling Brothers ironically.
If you guys were protesting around the elephant, you'd have a case - but you're not. Additionally, no city is going to risk having to foot a bill for your elephant if it's vandalized or pay for the extra security to guard it - trust me, there isn't enough taxpayers that will support having to pay to guard your statue. Not in this economy.
Just a little bit of facts for your protests of the first amendment.
Posted by: Mel | August 26, 2009 05:42 PM
Actually, city permits for temporary structures don't mandate that the city spend money on the structure for security. When an individual submits a permit to place the structure, they accept liablity for damage done to it or damage casued to the city from the stucture's presence.
This is not an issue of expense to the city. The city would actually make money by allowing Ella to be there. Those permits are often over $100 a month!
Posted by: bebo | August 27, 2009 06:12 PM
Bebo, that is not true - they wouldn't be making any real money letting PETA have that statue up. $100 (maybe $200) versus all the complaints for the statue (local and Ringling) isn't worth their time. And IMHO I do not think that they'd let this elephant go without security knowing there are some who do NOT agree with PETA's current projects such as this. Just some common sense.
Additionally, the other point is that this is an advertisement and if PETA *really paid attention* to it - given how this elephant looks - unless you look REALLY close to the blanket (and most people will drive by it - let's be real), they will think that it's an ad for Ringling. It's counterproductive to your endeavors.
Posted by: Mel | August 28, 2009 09:25 AM