|
''National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley'', , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act, as amended in 1990, ( (d)(1)), which required the Chairperson of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) to ensure that "artistic excellence and artistic merit are the criteria by which () applications are judged, taking into consideration general standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public" was facially valid, as it neither inherently interfered with First Amendment rights nor violated constitutional vagueness principles. Justice O'Connor delivered the opinion of the Court. == Background == Congress established the National Endowment for the Arts in 1965 as an independent agency of the federal government. As of 2012, the NEA had awarded a total of more than $4 billion to support artistic excellence, creativity, and innovation for the benefit of individuals and communities.〔(【引用サイトリンク】url=http://nea.gov/about/index.html )〕 Since its establishment, the NEA has funded thousands of individual artists and arts organizations. In 1989, two controversial works were partially or fully funded with grants from the NEA. The Institute of Contemporary Art at the University of Pennsylvania used $30,000 of a visual arts grant from the NEA to fund a retrospective of Robert Mapplethorpe’s work. The exhibit, titled "The Perfect Moment", included homoerotic photographs that some members of Congress deemed to be pornographic. Members of Congress also criticized Serrano’s work, ''Piss Christ'', a photograph of a crucifix submerged in urine. The Southeast Center for Contemporary Arts, which also received funding from the NEA, awarded Serrano a $15,000 grant.〔(【引用サイトリンク】url=http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/doc28.html#opinion )〕 In response to the use of NEA grants to funding these projects, Congress created an Independent Commission of constitutional law scholars to review the NEA's grant-making process and make recommendations. Ultimately, Congress adopted the Williams/Coleman Amendment. The Amendment became §954(d)(1), which directs the NEA Chairperson to judge the artistic merit of grant applications while also “tak() into consideration general standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public”.〔 The case ultimately known as ''NEA v. Finley'' was filed by four individual performance artists Karen Finley, John Fleck, Holly Hughes, and Tim Miller, and the National Association of Artists' Organizations (NAAO). The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants, the NEA and NEA Chairperson John E. Frohnmayer violated their constitutional rights by wrongly turning down their applications for NEA grants. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief on their constitutional and statutory funding claims, and damages on an additional Privacy Act claim. In addition, all plaintiffs sought a declaration that the so-called "decency clause" of 20 U.S.C. 954(d), was void for vagueness and violated the First Amendment on its face. The Supreme Court heard two motions. The first was the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. Defendants argued that: (1) the NEA's funding decisions are unreviewable because they are committed to agency discretion by law; (2) venue was improper as to the Privacy Act claim; and (3) plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the facial validity of the "decency clause" because they cannot establish the necessary injury. The Court also considered plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on their facial challenge to the "decency clause". 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|