Abstract
There is substantial controversy over whether the government should be involved in art funding. The purpose of this Note is to present and critique arguments both supporting the “decency and respect” provision and those opposing it. Those who support the clause state that although the people do not have a constitutional right to receive funding, the “decency and respect” provision does not violate the people’s First and Fifth Amendments. The provision is only a “consideration”, not a requirement. Opponents of the “decency and respect” provision argue that the First and Fifth Amendments prohibit the government from controlling the content of the subsidized arts.
Recommended Citation
Choi, Alicia M.
(1999)
"National Endowment of the Arts v. Finley: A Dispute Over the "Decency and Respect" Provision,"
Akron Law Review: Vol. 32:
Iss.
2, Article 4.
Available at:
https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol32/iss2/4