Title: Art Censorship | The First Amendment Encyclopedia
Headings: The First Amendment Encyclopedia
The First Amendment Encyclopedia
Art Censorship
By Gabe Teninbaum (Updated September 2017 by David L. Hudson Jr.)
Obscene artistic expression without "serious artistic value" may be censored
Expression that offends others' rights may be censored
Prior restraint attempts have been unsuccessful
Government may not censor expression in public forums
Government may use funding to indirectly censor art

Content: Funding is one way the government can indirectly censor art. In National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley (1998), the Supreme Court ruled that the government need not subsidize art it considers indecent. Although Finley does not stand for the proposition that disagreeable art is subject to censorship, it does mean that the government need not sponsor art it finds offensive. In this photo, Performance artist Karen Finley talks to reporters outside the Supreme Court in 1998. ( AP Photo/William Philpott, used with permission from the Associated Press)
Government may use funding to indirectly censor art
To the extent that the government funds the arts, it may indirectly censor artists by refusing to finance projects. The federal government did not become significantly involved with sponsoring the arts until it created the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) in 1965. In the 1980s, the NEA sparked a public and political uproar when it helped fund exhibits with controversial themes. Critics accused the NEA of financing obscenity, and Congress passed an arts funding law in 1990 requiring that public values be considered in awarding grants. The Supreme Court upheld that law in 1998, ruling in National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley (1998) that the government need not subsidize art it considers indecent. Although Finley does not stand for the proposition that disagreeable art is subject to censorship, it does mean that the government need not sponsor art it finds offensive.