Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 647

524US2

Unit: $U95

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

602

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR ARTS v. FINLEY

Souter, J., dissenting

Union Free School Dist., 508 U. S. 384 (1993) (after-hours
access to public school property may not be withheld on the
basis of viewpoint); Leathers v. Medlock, 499 U. S. 439, 447
(1991) (“[D]ifferential taxation of First Amendment speakers
is constitutionally suspect when it threatens to suppress the
expression of particular ideas or viewpoints”); Paciﬁc Gas &
Elec. Co. v. Public Util. Comm’n of Cal., 475 U. S. 1 (1986)
(government-mandated access to public utility’s billing enve-
lopes must not be viewpoint based); Members of City Coun-
cil of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U. S. 789,
804 (1984) (“[T]he First Amendment forbids the government
to regulate speech in ways that favor some viewpoints or
ideas at the expense of others”).

It goes without saying that artistic expression lies within
this First Amendment protection. See, e. g., Hurley v.
Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Bos-
ton, Inc., 515 U. S. 557, 569 (1995) (remarking that exam-
ples of painting, music, and poetry are “unquestionably
shielded”); Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U. S. 781, 790
(1989) (“Music, as a form of expression and communication,
is protected under the First Amendment”); Schad v. Mount
Ephraim, 452 U. S. 61, 65 (1981) (“Entertainment, as well as
political and ideological speech, is protected; motion pictures,
programs broadcast by radio and television, and live enter-
tainment, such as musical and dramatic works, fall within
the First Amendment guarantee”); Kaplan v. California,
413 U. S. 115, 119–120 (1973) (“[P]ictures, ﬁlms, paintings,
drawings, and engravings . . . have First Amendment protec-
tion”). The constitutional protection of artistic works turns
not on the political signiﬁcance that may be attributable to
such productions, though they may indeed comment on the
political,1 but simply on their expressive character, which

1 Art “may affect public attitudes and behavior in a variety of ways,
ranging from direct espousal of a political or social doctrine to the subtle
shaping of thought which characterizes all artistic expression.” Joseph
Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U. S. 495, 501 (1952).