Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 648

524US2

Unit: $U95

[09-06-00 18:40:44] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 524 U. S. 569 (1998)

603

Souter, J., dissenting

falls within a spectrum of protected “speech” extending
outward from the core of overtly political declarations. Put
differently, art is entitled to full protection because our
“cultural
life,” just like our native politics, “rest[s] upon
[the] ideal” of governmental viewpoint neutrality. Turner
Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U. S. 622, 641 (1994).
When called upon to vindicate this ideal, we characteristi-
cally begin by asking “whether the government has adopted
a regulation of speech because of disagreement with the mes-
sage it conveys. The government’s purpose is the control-
ling consideration.” Ward v. Rock Against Racism, supra,
at 791 (citation omitted). The answer in this case is damn-
ing. One need do nothing more than read the text of the
statute to conclude that Congress’s purpose in imposing the
decency and respect criteria was to prevent the funding of
art that conveys an offensive message; the decency and
respect provision on its face is quintessentially viewpoint
based, and quotations from the Congressional Record merely
conﬁrm the obvious legislative purpose.
In the words of a
cosponsor of the bill that enacted the proviso, “[w]orks which
deeply offend the sensibilities of signiﬁcant portions of the
public ought not to be supported with public funds.”
136
Cong. Rec. 28624 (1990).2 Another supporter of the bill ob-
served that “the Endowment’s support for artists like Rob-
ert Mapplethorpe and Andre[s] Serrano has offended and an-
gered many citizens,” behooving “Congress . . . to listen to
these complaints about the NEA and make sure that exhibits
Indeed, if
like [these] are not funded again.”
there were any question at all about what Congress had in

Id., at 28642.

2 There is, of course, nothing whatsoever unconstitutional about this
view as a general matter. Congress has no obligation to support artistic
enterprises that many people detest. The First Amendment speaks up
only when Congress decides to participate in the Nation’s artistic life by
legal regulation, as it does through a subsidy scheme like the NEA.
If
Congress does choose to spend public funds in this manner, it may not
discriminate by viewpoint in deciding who gets the money.