I’d like to recommend something on TV. It’s called “The First Amendment Project” and being shown on Sundance and CourtTV. Tonight was the first night (Wed will have same programming on CourtTV,) and featured two short documentaries. The first was a look at Fox v. Franken. That flap was over Al Franken’s book, Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them, and the fact that it used the term “fair and balanced” in it’s subheading. Fox News claimed that the term “fair and balanced” was their trademark… and took Franken to federal court. Of course, the real reason this suit was prompted was because Franken throughly discredited O’Reilly in book and O’Reilly was pissed off. In the end Franken won. The documentary is a funny, pithy look into the case and the issues surrounding it.
The second documentary was about the Amiri Baraka scandal. Although I had not heard about this story previously, it turned out to be really interesting. Basically, Baraka, a controversial poet, was named by NJ as the state poet laureate. After 9/11, Baraka wrote a long poem about 9/11, which could be summed up as a, “who’s really the bad guy here?” type piece. In it, he hinted that perhaps the state of Israel knew about the attacks. This, of course, got the people at the ADL furious. Since NJ could not revoke Baraka’s title as poet laureate, and he refused to abscond, the NJ senate decided to abolish the position of state poet laureate… a roundabout way of firing him for what he wrote. The film uses this story to outline the importance of art as political speech, and examine to what extent, if any, art can be regulated when financed with public funds.
Lurking in the back of both stories, and explicitly touched upon in the latter was the idea of culture wars. Sure there are the Fox News’ and Franken’s of the world, but what of the many lesser battles that play out daily in the streets, courts, art galleries and schools? The question in my mind becomes, “Does the current administration, because it is so indebted to the religious right, stifle first amendment privileges in the name of decency, morality, national security, or what have you?” Although you all probably know my answer, it’s certainly not a question to be treated lightly.
To reel in this topic for some discussion (which I’m glad to see happening here) I’ll bring it to the specific instance of government funded art. If the government supports an individual artist, through a grant program or any other means of financial assistance, does it have the right to censor what that individual creates? Does the piper have to play to the tune of his benefactor, or should the first amendment supersede such patronage?
