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

the fact that there are so many parts to this test that are subject to the discretion and judgment of the jury. It is possible that something that a Los Angeles jury would find to be acceptable, would not be acceptable in the heart of Bible-belt Mississippi.

This case demonstrates the great risks that artist sometimes face. Although art has the power to be pleasing to the eye and to be generally thought provoking, throughout history art has also been used to challenge authority, conventional thinking and commonly held views. It is in these circumstances when what many would consider to be sexually provocative symbols or anti-religious symbols are used that artists must rely on the freedoms protected by the First Amendment. Without those kinds of protections, suppressing unpopular or challenging art would be a frequent tactic of a vote hungry politician.

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!

not violate the protections provided by the First Amendment.. However, despite what on the face of the First Amendment appears to be a total prohibition on government restricting freedom of speech, not all exercises of expression or speech will be protected by the First Amendment.

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 applicatio

Some common words found in the essay are:
Miller California, Supreme Court, Endowment Arts, United Senate, United Amendment, Karen Finley, Brooklyn Museum, Nina Gershon, Jacobellis Ohio, Mayor Giuliani, supreme court, protected amendment, national endowment, united supreme, endowment arts, freedom speech, national endowment arts, united supreme court, decency respect, artistic expression, decency respect clause, providing funding, miller california, art providing funding, obscene protected amendment,
Approximate Word count = 1812
Approximate Pages = 7 (250 words per page double spaced)