Title: 
Headings: 

Content: Is funding of the arts an appropriate government activity? How does freedom of expression apply in the context of federally funded activities? How is aesthetic value determined by the executive and judiciary branches of government? The culmination of the battle over NEA 
      funding - at least for the moment - came in 1998 when the Supreme Court 
      decided National 
      Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, 524 U.S. 569 (1998). Congress 
      has passed a statute that required the NEA to take "into consideration 
      general standards of decency" in deciding whether to fund an application. In an opinion by Justice O'Connor, the Court upheld the constitutionality 
      of that requirement, claiming "that the legislation was aimed at reforming 
      procedures rather than precluding speech," and was unlikely to become 
      "a tool for invidious viewpoint discrimination." Justice Scalia 
      concurred but went further, asserting that the government could decide how 
      to spend its money and could withhold funds from artists whose viewpoint 
      was considered objectionable. Justice Souter dissented on classic liberal 
      grounds, asserting "the fundamental rule of the First Amendment that 
      viewpoint discrimination in the exercise of public authority over expressive 
      activity is unconstitutional." Justice O'Connor was caught between Scylla 
      and Charybdis: if the Court found the requirement unconstitutional, 
      Congress might withdraw all funding from the NEA;