Offensive art not protected
In the opinion column that defended the right
of an artist to make and the right of a Brooklyn museum to exhibit art
which is patently offensive to a group of religious minorities, a precedent
was established that no decent paper or person would seriously defend.
Eugene Maumeipulotu Mafi
The appeal to free speech is weak in and
of itself, because free speech is either an absolute principle, where nothing
anywhere or anytime can be restricted, or it is a relative principle that
allows for some things to be restricted sometimes.
In that case, the dilemma involves deciding
what things, at what times, should be restricted. Obviously, the Constitution
has always been interpreted according to the latter principle.
Nevertheless, the Brooklyn case does not
even address the issue of free speech versus government imposed censorship.
Rather, it is a question of the government's
right not to fund private artists or museums, and conversely the right
of an artist or museum to be funded by the government.
Thus, the real question is not of the artist's
or museumís right to free speech, which in this case, has never been questioned,
but of the obvious right and responsibility of the government not to fund
offensive and bigoted attacks on, in this case, religious minorities.
Additionally, the column's flimsy comparison
between a private radio stationís right not to carry Ku Klux Klan advertising,
and the right of the museum to be even partially government-funded (without
any accountability or oversight whatsoever) is absurd on the face of it.
For this to be an even remotely parallel
analogy, the situation would have to involve either the right of the artist
to force the museum to carry his offensive art, which is the equivalent
of the Klan forcing the radio station to carry its offensive advertisement.
Or, even more absurdly, the right of a
radio station that had decided to air the Klan's advertisement to receive
government funding nonetheless (which is the equivalent of the museum demanding
government funds despite its unconscionable decision to exhibit offensive
"art").
However, the precedent established in the
Klan case is exactly the opposite of that which would have to be set in
either of the above cases: namely, the station, which refused to carry
the Klan's offensive advertisement, had no responsibility whatsoever to
carry the Klanís material.
Similarly, if the radio station had decided
to carry the Klan's ad, how far would that station have gotten if it had
argued that the government should fund the station in spite of the offensive
nature of the Klan ads that it had decided to air?
The conclusion to be reached from the Klan
analogy is obvious. If the museum does not have the decency to refrain
from carrying bigoted artwork that seriously maligns the Catholic, or for
that matter, any other religion, then the government has not only the legal
right but the moral responsibility not to fund the museum.
Even if certain Catholics are not offended,
the work is no less bigoted than a work that was objectively derogatory
against women be harmless or wholesome simply because not all females are
offended.
That your usually tolerant publication
would defend anti-religious-minority bigotry based on a misapplication
of free speech is indicative of serious inconsistency and insensitivity
on a clear-cut case of intolerance and defamation. |
![[opinion]](http://www.csulb.edu/~d49er/Icon/opinion.gif){kind=icon}
![[news]](http://www.csulb.edu/~d49er/Icon/news.gif){kind=icon}
![[sports]](http://www.csulb.edu/~d49er/Icon/sports.gif){kind=icon}