Join NCAC Now

» art» media» literature» science» internet» education» entertainment

EXPRESS YOURSELF!

 in support of free expression



NCAC File Room


The information presented here by the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) may be freely redistributed in its entirety, provided that readers are informed that the information was obtained from NCAC's World Wide Web site and that credit is given to the appropriate source of whatever information is used. Permission is expressly granted for the information obtained to be made available for file transfer from installations offering unrestricted anonymous file transfer on the Internet. Information found here may not be sold for profit or incorporated in commercial documents without the written permission from the National Coalition Against Censorship.

©Copyright 2005 NCAC
WEB DESIGN
Jeanne Criscola Criscola Design

free speech first amendment censorship

  
CASE NAME: Advocates for the Arts v. Thomson
CITATION: 532 F.2d 792 (1st Cir. 1976)
Topics: Funding
The governor of New Hampshire refused to approve an art grant from the New Hampshire Commission on the Arts for the literary magazine ‘Granite’ because the magazine had previously published a poem (“Castrating the Cat,” see Appendix to Opinion) that contained language and imagery that some might find offensive. He described the poem as an “item of filth.” The magazine and an organization for the promotion of the arts filed suit, claiming that the governor’s decision violated their First Amendment rights because a decision based only on personal preferences constitutes an improper prior restraint of free expression.

The Court found the governor’s decision was constitutional. It did not constitute prior restraint simply because it promoted one work of artistic expression instead of another. The Court found there to be no tradition of required neutrality when deciding which work to subsidize with federal funds. Because of the high level of subjectivity in determining the merit of artwork, the Court declined to require narrow, objective standards for the state to follow in deciding what to fund. In effect, the Court said that if the state believes works of an offensive nature necessarily have less artistic merit than others, it is in no position to disagree.

The Court did find, however, that if a pattern of discrimination, supporting one type of viewpoint consistently over others, were present, that pattern may constitute a First Amendment violation. In this case, such a pattern of viewpoint discrimination was absent, and the governor’s denial of the grant was thus constitutional.
This case is significant for the broad deference the Court gives to the state and its spending choices.
These materials are not intended, and should not be used, as legal advice. They necessarily contain generalizations that are not applicable in all jurisdictions or circumstances. Moreover, court decisions may be superceded by subsequent rulings, and may be subject to alternative interpretations. Corrections, clarification, and additions are welcome. Please send to ncac@ncac.org.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Action Alerts

» National

» Eastern

» Central

» Mountain

» Pacific


» email alert sign-up


» report censorship!

 

275 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001 » Phone (212) 807-6222 Fax (212) 807-6245 » ncac@ncac.org