Binford, chairman of Memphis, Tennessee, movie board. In this 1946 photo, films are getting a sharp going-over at the hands of 77-year-old Lloyd T. For example, courts have held that requiring a movie producer to submit a film for rating prior to showing it publicly is a constitutional exercise of government power despite the strong presumption against the legality of prior restraints. Prior restraints have, however, been upheld in some limited forms. The maxim against prior restraint prohibits federal, state, and local governments from requiring a person to seek permission before publishing or speaking. Pacifica Foundation (1978), the Court held that indecent material, particularly in the context of television or radio broadcasts, which cannot be banned entirely under the First Amendment, may be restricted to avoid broadcast during times when children might typically view or hear it. “Indecent” works, which are less than obscene but make use of patently offensive terms to describe sexuality or bodily functions, may be restricted. California (1973) the Supreme Court excluded materials with “serious artistic value” from the definition of obscenity. Legitimate artistic expressions are never, however, considered obscene because in Miller v. Some artistic expression is subject to censorship based on its content.įor example, “obscene” materials may be censored. Obscene artistic expression without "serious artistic value" may be censored Artistic expression through the spoken or written word, particularly in the form of political protest or satirical speeches or writings, such as plays or stories, is akin to “pure speech”and is entitled to comprehensive protection.īy contrast, art created for commercial purposes or not designed to convey an expressive message (such as nude dancing) is entitled to less protection. The scope of protection afforded to artistic expression largely depends on the nature of the speech. Nonetheless, restrictions on the publication of art continues in several contexts. The First Amendment provides significant protection to artistic expression and, as a result, severely limits the government’s right to censor controversial works in most contexts. In drafting the Constitution, the framers acknowledged the importance of artistic expression, going so far as to define promotion of the “useful arts” as one of government’s purposes.ĭespite this early recognition, artistic expression has historically been subject to some measure of direct or indirect censorship in the United States. 2017) ruled that the art display was a form of government speech largely because the government retained the ability to exercise editorial control over which paintings were displayed. (AP Photo/Zach Gibson, used with permission from The Associated Press.) A controversy ensued over a high school student’s painting (pictured above) that was removed from the Capitol Building in 2017 because it had anti-police themes and offended some members of Congress. The student artist, David Pulphus, and the representative who supported the painting challenged the removal in federal court. However, a federal district court judge in Pulphus v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |