Posted on 09/25/2005 4:14:49 AM PDT by alessandrofiaschi
The government can decide what artwork is worthwhile without being accused of censorship as long as it is funding that art, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told an audience Thursday at the Juilliard School.
"The First Amendment has not repealed the ancient rule of life, that he who pays the piper calls the tune," Scalia said.
The justice, who limited his discussion to art issues, said he wasn't suggesting that government stop funding the arts, but that if it does fund artwork, it is entitled to have a say in the content, just like when it runs a school system.
The high court and Scalia have weighed in on the issue before.
In the late 1980s, the National Endowment for the Arts sparked a public and political uproar when it helped fund exhibits of photographer Robert Mapplethorpe's homoerotic images and a photograph by Andres Serrano of a crucifix immersed in urine.
Critics contended the NEA was financing obscenity, and Congress passed an arts-funding law in 1990 requiring public values be considered when handing out grants.
The Supreme Court upheld that law in 1998, ruling that the government need not subsidize art it considers indecent. Justice David H. Souter was the only dissenter, saying the law was overbroad and had "a significant power to chill artistic production and display."
Scalia said Thursday he believes the government did not violate the First Amendment in the case of the Serrano photo -- it did not pass any law to throw the "modern day DaVinci" into jail nor did it stop him from displaying his art, he said.
"I can truly understand the discomfort with government making artistic choices, but the only remedy is to get government out of funding," he told the audience.
Scalia said the Supreme Court has not done a very good job of framing a definition of obscenity, which the First Amendment does not protect.
"The line between protected pornography and unprotected obscenity lies between appealing to a good healthy interest in sex and appealing to a depraved interest, whatever that means," Scalia said in stating the Court's position.
The result is that every small town in America must tolerate the existence of a porn shop, he said.
Ok, then I will suggest it now.
I love Scalia. I would have much rather seen him as CJ than Roberts.
Me too! Scalia is so skilled!
That's worth repeating.
but the only remedy is to get government out of funding," he told the audience
I'll second that. A day without art may be a day without sunshine, but it is also a day with less taxes and more leftist turds thrown out on the street.
...which, of course, is an excellent argument against government funded "news" broadcasts.
"The justice, who limited his discussion to art issues, said he wasn't suggesting that government stop funding the arts"
...but, of course, he should have--and also NPR.
We would still have plenty of art. The differrence would be that the free market would seperate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. No more left wing art "statements" that nobody wants to see or hear about.
If we get another conservative jurist to replace O'Connor, this court will well be called the Scalia Court. I don't think that he can ever be discounted for his impact.
There's plenty of private funding out there. Why should we pay for any art - good or bad - because an artist is too stoopit to locate his/her own patrons?
(Now, a mildly related bit of info I just learned today. Does everyone realize that taxpayers may also often fund the ACLU as well? They pick on small, underfunded towns and counties, & bully them into submission over some idiot discrimination or religious issue. THEN, they judge-shop to sue/demand that their $350/hr. legal expenses be paid (using the pretext/twisting of a civil-rights law). Funny thing is, a lot of the "work' was done for free by volunteer lawyers, Or by law professors commandering their classroomss and students (also largely tax-supported). WHAT A RACKET!!!
FDR's depression era WPA program paid artists to paint murals in public buildings and such.
Where are these many tax-fundeds works of art now? Demolished, or covered over, mostly. They apparently didn't merit preserving.
What happened to some of the artist who painted them? Some went on to participate in post-war America's near-total takeover of the International Art Scene. (Very little of which was attributable to public funding.)
Where are these many tax-fundeds works of art now? Demolished, or covered over, mostly.
Many still exist. For instance --
http://www.wpamurals.com/missouri.htm
http://www.norwalktransit.com/murals.htm
http://www.doi.gov/museum/murals/dixon.html
http://www.economist.com/cities/displayobject.cfm?obj_id=471896&city_id=SF
There are a lot of folks in this country willing to pay for art. Let's let them do it!
Already posted here:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1489768/posts
Art ping...This discussion has gotten going again in a different location...
I generally have mixed feelings about Scalia. He's right that he who pays calls the tune, but the larger point is that the state shouldn't be buying too much art in the first place.
Worth repeating.
Would Scalia have wanted CJ? What's the advantage? (I really am ignorant of the duties of CJ) You still have only one vote, and there's more busy work for your staff, right?
As far as I know, the CJ chooses who writes the opinion of the court on any given case. I could be wrong.
The CJ is only one vote...no ruling authority.
FMCDH(BITS)
As far as I know, the CJ chooses who writes the opinion of the court on any given case. I could be wrong.
The CJ is only one vote...no ruling authority.
FMCDH(BITS)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.