Freedom of speech or freedom to be heard?

A controversial painting will not be removed from a community college's exhibit despite numerous complaints. The painting is based on a famous sculpture by Michelangelo. In the sculpture, the recently crucified Jesus is craddled by his mother Mary. In the painting by Hugo Bastidas entitled "Mary Magdalene Mourning Her Lover," Jesus is craddled by his supposed lover Mary Magdalene.

This is nothing extremely new or shocking (anyone remember the Virgin Mary smeared with cow dung or the small statue of Jesus placed in a jar of urine), but I think the respone given by the college bears examination.

Now personally, I do not like the painter's image - the implication that Jesus had an affair with Mary Magdalene attacks the very root of my faith.

Having said that, I could care less if some college wants to have an exhibit that displays a piece of art I disagree with. I do not have trump rights over what they place in their gallery. (One unclear area is that the college is funded with tax dollars. Why can you mention Jesus in a mocking way, but not in a sacred way?)

However, I do find their immediate fall back position, while extremely popular, to be troubling. When asked if they would take down the painting, college spokesperson Ann Winfield said:

As an academic institution, while we may not agree with the portrayal, while we may not even like it, we can't censor it and we won't censor it.

Why is the automatic response to a question of decency is to wrap the questionable material in the First Amendment and scream censorship? No one in this situation wanted to "censor" the artist. Some asked for it to be removed from the college's art gallery. Some questioned the use of federal dollars. But no one said the painting should never be displayed or censored.

Removing one avenue of publicity is not censoring anyone or anything. Is it censorship if the local newspaper does not print my op-ed? Is it censorship if the local radio station does not play my song? Is it censorship if the local art gallery does not display my photographs?

I agree that we should protect free speech, particularly unpopular, minority opinion speech, but that does not mean that they are entitled to every taxpayer funded avenue they like.

In this day and age it is very hard, if not impossible, for someone to be completely censored. The painter could have displayed his painting at numerous other galleries. If all else failed he could have set up his own blog and posted his painting for all the online world to see. His scope of influence may or may not have been limited, but unless it was added recently the First Amendment never guarenteed a large (taxpayer funded) audience for my protected speech.

Comments

[Sam]

Aaron,

People used to tell me that I was "censoring" them by not running their articles when I ran the student newspaper the University of Massachusetts. My stock response? "I have freedom of the press. I have a press. You don't. Hence, you don't have the freedom of it."

However, in this case the painting was already hanging up. Taking it down after the fact does smack slightly of censorship. If somebody had suggested not hanging it before it went up, then that's something else altogether.

[seeker]

This is why thinking Christians should oppose government funding of the arts - not only are they non-essential, if someone gives you money, they should have some say in how it is spent.

The arts should be supported by patrons and citizens, not government. Then we don't end up paying for things that we should not, like anti-american or anti-religious propaganda, and artists don't have to limit their art to what is "acceptable."

You can't have it both ways - you want money, you gotta obey some rules.

[Tom]

The college's argument proves too much. Does it mean they'll publicly display any idea whatsoever? Would they even (gasp!!) publish a defense of Intelligent Design?

[seeker]

If it's government or university funded, it can't be religious! I mean, it can be anti-religious, but G*d forbid we should allow religious expression - unless, of course, you don't mean it, and it's just a cultural expression. ;)

Can we approach ID as a cultural minority that should have special rights? Maybe a display that shows how our culture is suppressed by the white liberals in power?

[Sam]

So, we can also stop funding Christian causes too?

Right?

[seeker]

Maybe. But we need to have a fair standard for moneys - whomever provides the cash can say what its uses are.

[Aaron]

I would be all in favor of removing all federal dollars from religious organizations, if we removed all federal dollars from anti-religious organizations and really any unneccessary function including arts. I think we should have arts, I just don't think it is the taxpayer's job to pay for them.

[Louis]

But what about those of us who WANT our tax dollars spent on the arts (even controversial arts)? Are we to be shut out just because you guys don't like the arts? How about this: you pretend that your tax dollars go to "faith-based organization" and I'll pretend mine go to the arts. We'll both be happy.

[Aaron]

Here is what happens Louis (by the way, I don't mind arts at all): When the government funding is removed from both the arts, faith-based organizations and numerous other things; the money is freed up to go back to the taxpayer.

When you get your refund in the mail you can forward it directly to whatever art project you want to and I can send mine to whatever faith-based group I want to. Isn't that so much better than having the government take our money and decide for us which things we should sponsor?

[Louis]

You and I both know that that will never, ever happen. If all arts funding was cut, the money would simply go to some boondoggle or pork-barrel project! I take some comfort knowing that at least some of my tax dollars go to the arts and not just to Iraq, military waste, fatcat pork, and/or bridges that go nowhere.

Besides, arts funding doesn't just go to controversial art or individual artists. It goes to museums, performance companies, and arts education. I think it is a worthwhile endeavor for our gov't to try to educate the people at least to some degree in the arts, otherwise it's junk tv and hip-hop crappola nonstop.

Think about it.