|
|
|
|
Art 'Censorship' and Constitutionality |
| Section: MODERN THOUGHT / POINT/COUNTERPOINT: PUBLIC FUNDING OF ART |
| Author: Morton A. Kaplan |
| Publication:
The World & I Online |
| Issue Date: 12/1/1992 |
| Size: 3,799 Words, 22,554 Characters |
|
Prof. Kathleen Sullivan of Harvard University Law School has argued that governmental awards can no more be restricted to favored groups in the case of arts than in the case of political parties. Further more, she says, an award does not carry a seal of approval. I believe she has made her distinctions inappropriately.
Let us start with the analogy between governmental grants in the arts and those to political parties. Governmental grants to political parties obviously must be open to all legal and accredited parties. They might receive funds in relationship to, for instance, some minimum number of percentage of votes in a previous election or the amount of funds raised independently by the parties. The Nazi Party, and all other applicant political parties, not just the Republicans and the Democrats, would be entitled to legislatively specified funds if they were legal and met these standards. This would not signify approval except in a very marginal sense.
However, the analogy to artistic grants is a bad one. The standards for the award of campaign funds, whether based on votes or monies raised are public and objective. Except for peripheral matters such as the honesty of the vote count, for instance, the application of the standard is mechanical. The existence of the party is established by the standards for registration. All eligible applicants receive awards. Subjective preferences and hidden agendas are irrelevant to the process.
However, and much more importantly, the eligibility of any political party to governmental funding on an equal basis, dependent only upon some defining standard, follows from the requirement not to favor one legal political party over another because that would create an unfair bias with respect to access to office, a feature central to a democratic political system.
This access, dependent only upon the legality of the party, is a requirement of a democratic system. Thus, the existence of financial assistance necessarily generalizes it.
Government Funding of Opinion
The extent to which the government must fund expressions of opinion designed to influence legislation if it funds some is not so easy to answer. If it funds prohibition arguments, i...
Read Full Article
...s to set us at war with each other. It is not true that we must be a member of a peer group to be able to recognize that his is happening. Our right to make mistakes, even stupid or outrageous mistakes, in making these fallible judgments is on e of the inalienable rights with which few have been endowed. It goes along with our right to make a mistake in taking a job or a partner in marriage.
(2,291 of 22,554 characters)
|
|
|
Publication Details
(The World & I Online) |
|
The World & I Online is a
comprehensive academic resource that encompasses a broad range of
articles by scholars and experts in the areas of Global Studies,
Liberal Arts, Fine & Applied Arts, General Science, and Spanish.
Originally published monthly in print as The World & I, our site
includes the complete contents since 1986 and continues to publish
a new issue online each month. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
