""In the late 1980s, Congress passed controversial prohibitions on the funding of "obscene" art, triggering thunderous protests from both artists and civil libertarians. At the height of the controversy, then-President George Bush fired the NEA chairman John Frohnmayer.(1)
This phase of the controversy centered on obscenity, which is a recognized exception to First Amendment protection. In 1989 Congress used language from the Miller v. California decision in an amendment to the annual NEA appropriations act:
none of the funds . . . may be used to promote, disseminate, or produce materials which . . . may be considered obscene, including but not limited to, depictions of sadomasochism, homoeroticism, the sexual exploitation of children, or individuals engaged in sex acts and which, when taken as a whole, do not have serious literary artistic, political, or scientific value. (2)
NEA required grant recipients to certify that they would not use grant funds "to promote, disseminate, or produce [obscene] materials." (3)
Many artists and arts organizations, including the late Joseph Papp, producer of the New York Shakespeare Festival and A Chorus Line (4), refused to accept NEA grants to protest the prohibitions on the content of their art. Some filed lawsuits challenging these restrictions on their exercise of free speech. Federal courts sided with the artists, striking down as unconstitutional the certification required by NEA. In a lawsuit brought against NEA by the Bella Lewitsky Dance Foundation, the court held that the requirement was unconstitutionally vague and that it violated the First Amendment protection of free speech. ""
i think you were saying that if the govt does not fund "artists" our civilization would fall into the "dark ages".
