Many artists take for granted the freedom to create art. Most do not understand or appreciate this freedom until it is taken from them. Fortunately, this freedom is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech" (1). The 14th Amendment makes the protections of the First Amendment applicable to state laws. Almost any attempt to regulate written or spoken word can be scrutinized by the courts to assure that it does

In 1998, the United States Supreme Court was faced with deciding whether a provision of the National Foundation of the Arts and the Humanities Act was constitutional or whether it violated the First Amendment rights of artists applying for grants. The National Endowment of the Arts is the federal agency responsible for providing funding for various artists and arts groups such as museums and theater and dance groups. Section 5 (d) of the Act says that the Chairperson of the National Endowment of the Arts shall ensure that when reviewing funding applications that consideration be given to “general standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public”(2). This provision is commonly known as the “decency and respect” clause.

In Finley v. National Endowment for the Arts, 118 S. Ct. 2168 (1998) Karen Finley, a performance artist applied for funding from the National Endowment for the Arts. Her performance was viewed as having homosexual and erotic overtones. When her application for a grant was turned down due to the content and subject matter of her art she sued the NEA in federal court in California. The court ruled that the decency and respect clause constituted an unreasonable restraint on artistic speech and found that it violated the First Amendment. However, the case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The Court held that because the decency and respect clause was not mandatory, i.e. the Act does not require NEA to base it’s funding decisions on this standard, it merely directs NEA to consider them as part of the funding process, it was not an unreasonable attempt by Congress to regulate artistic content in violation of the First Amendment rights of Karen Finley. Many peopl!

Although we live in the freest country in the world, with the most liberal laws involving free speech and artistic expression, those freedoms are not without limits from government regulation. The Finley case demonstrates that the government has some rights to consider the content of the art when it is providing funding. Also, the Miller case demonstrates that art and expression that is considered to be obscene under the Miller test can still be regulated by the government. Even though governments in the United States posssess some rights to regulate art content, the alternatives in other countries are far worse.

Many people believe that the Miller test is unjust. These people believe that there is no foundation in the First Amendment for a rule that could deprive an individual whose taste in art is different from the rest of his or her community of the same rights as another person in another state to produce or view

Some topics in this essay:
Miller California, Supreme Court, Endowment Arts, United Senate, United Amendment, Karen Finley, Brooklyn Museum, Jacobellis Ohio, Nina Gershon, Mayor Giuliani, supreme court, protected amendment, united supreme court, freedom speech, united supreme, endowment arts, national endowment, artistic expression, national endowment arts, miller california, decency respect, providing funding, art providing funding, decency respect clause,