A free speech case over a pastry shop painting finally reaches trial
The story of the mural has captivated the area
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.A First Amendment dispute over a bright painting that shows sunbeams shining down on a mountain range made of sprinkle-covered chocolate and strawberry doughnuts, a blueberry muffin, a cinnamon roll and other pastries is scheduled for trial Thursday.
A federal judge in New Hampshire will consider whether a town is infringing on the free speech rights of the bakery owner who's displaying the mural over his business.
“I think the whole town is following this story,” said Sean Young, the owner of Leavitt's Country Bakery in Conway, a community of more than 10,000 people near the White Mountains that draws skiers, nature lovers and shoppers. Some residents want regulations enforced as they worry about overdevelopment in the tourist town.
The mural atop the bakery, which was founded over 45 years ago, is a creation of local high school art students. When it went up in June 2022, the painting attracted a lot of compliments and visitors, including one from a town zoning officer.
The zoning board decided that the painting was not so much art as advertising. The board determined it was a sign, and so it could not remain as is because of its size. At about 90 square feet (8.6 square meters), it’s four times bigger than the local sign code allows.
If the painting didn't show what's sold inside — baked goods — it wouldn't be considered a sign and could stay, board members said.
Lawyers for the town say that it has shown that “restricting the size of signs serves the significant government interest of preserving the town’s aesthetics, promoting safety, and ensuring equal enforcement,” according to a court document.
Young was told to modify or remove the painting. Faced with possible misdemeanor criminal charges and fines after his appeals were rejected, he sued the town in federal court in 2023, saying his freedom of speech rights were violated.
“Government officials don’t get to tell people, including entrepreneurs and businesses, what they can and can’t paint,” the Virginia-based Institute for Justice, which is representing Young, said in a news release at the time. "And no one can say with a straight face that Leavitt’s mural would be any safer, healthier or more aesthetically pleasing if it portrayed flowers instead of pastries.”
Young is asking for $1 in damages. His lawyers say the town's definition of a sign is overly broad and that the town hasn't shown that anything bad will happen if the painting continues to stay up. It hasn't been removed.
Part of Conway's sign code states that the town "has no intention of restricting individual free speech, but the town does recognize its right to place reasonable restrictions upon commercial speech.”
The town has enforced its sign code against other businesses. In 2006, for example, it said an ice cream parlor's trash cans, which were shaped like ice cream cones, were signs. The business asked for and got permission from the town to use the cans. In another case, a sporting goods store agreed to remove window screens with photos of mountain bikes and skis after the town determined they were signs.
Young's lawsuit was paused for a few months in 2023 as residents considered revising how the town defines signs, in a way that would have allowed the painting to stay up. But that measure was seen as too broad and complex, and it failed to pass.
Last year, voters passed a new ordinance that requires applicants to meet criteria for art on public and commercial property but it has not applied to Young's case.