State of Protest

DC – Congress, on Monday July 13, 2009, passed what’s been nicknamed the “Critique Bill.” It’s currently before President Obama, and there is no indication that he will veto the controversial bill. The bill, officially titled the “Artistic Expression Protection Act,” would make it illegal to criticize works of art… any work of art under penalty of fines up to $35,000. It also has provisions regarding libel, but the controversial aspect lies in the Critique Clause.

Here is an excerpt:

Section 16

(1) A person who publishes or utters any statement critical of art or the product of artistic expression shall be guilty of an offense and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding $35,000.

(2) For the purposes of this section, a person publishes or utters a critical statement if (a) he or she publishes or utters a statement that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held very important by any artist, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that artistic genre, and (b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the said statement, to cause such outrage.

Section 17

(1) Where a person is convicted of an offense under section 16, the court may issue a warrant (a) authorizing any member of the New York State Police to enter (if necessary by the use of reasonable force) at all reasonable times any premises (including a dwelling) at which he or she has reasonable grounds for believing that copies of the statement to which the offense related are to be found, and to search those premises and seize and remove all copies of the statement found therein, (b) directing the seizure and removal by any member of the NYSP of all copies of the statement to which the offense related that are in the possession of any person, specifying the manner in which copies so seized and removed shall be detained and stored by the NYSP.

When Congress first started deliberating the bill over a month ago, Obama had this to say in regard:¹

The United States and artists around the world should have a relationship based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and art are not exclusive and need not be in competition. To this end, the The Artistic Expression Protection Act will be a tour de force, setting an important precedent for the rest of the world to show that America cannot and will not be intolerant of its artists and of artistic freedom.

When asked about the possibility that the bill conflicts with the free speech clause of the First Amendment, President Obama declined to answer directly, only reiterating his trust in the legislative process.

Reaction from other nations varies. President Sarkozy denounced Obama’s willingness to concede to those who would stifle free speech in any form, saying, “Obama could learn from France’s tolerance for any and all forms of artistic expression. France is, of course, the foundation of modern art.” ²

Prime Minister Gordon Brown of England, on the other hand, expressed dismay that the bill was not inclusive enough to be effective. “Generations from now,” he said, “they will look back upon this day not as a positive precedent, but, instead, as an embarrassment. Imagine having to pass a new law each and every time one can imagine a particular person’s point of view could be offended. That’s incredibly inefficient and a waste of resources, and England would have no such thing.”

When asked what he meant by that, the Prime Minister shrugged and responded, “Our government will be foregoing the tedium and needling of individual, overly-specific instances of offense, and will be, instead, covering all potential offenses with a blanket law protecting everyone’s right not to be offended, not just artists.”³ His statement substantiated recent rumors that Britain was on the verge of passing yet another set of surveillance-style laws meant to protect its citizens from themselves.

Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonya Sotomayor was asked during her congressional hearing yesterday whether, if a case regarding violation of the Artistic Expression Protection Act came before the Court, her past brief experience as a freelance painter would have an effect on her ruling. Judge Sotomayor indicated that she could not make a judgment at the hearing based on a hypothetical situation regarding a law that has yet to be passed, and that the role of the Supreme Court was not to pass personal judgment, but, instead, to evaluate the merits of each case in light of the law.⁴

Despite her neutral demeanor, Sotomayor has been heavily criticized by left-wing pundits. Keith Olbermann, for example, had this to say last night:⁵

Isn’t it obvious that Judge Sotomayor will be influenced by her past, especially with regard to art? I’m shocked that Congress let her off the hook on this one so easily. Hello, Congress!?! Next, they’ll be giving her a medal for telling Congress that she doesn’t see “black and white.”

From the artistic point of view, Professor Henri Rollings from the Philadelphia School of Art was enthusiastic about the bill’s inevitable passage.

Protecting artistic freedom from criticism ensures that artists will be unhindered by the rest of society and by free-thinking radicals who wish only to stifle expression with their unwarranted attacks on artists. Protecting artists from being harmed just because of their art is a return to the respect that artists had traditionally. Art is very important, and people need to realize that, even if they have to pay a fine and serve some jail time.

Opposing the bill is a small group of non-artists who have said that art cannot be protected from criticism, as that would be what non-artist activist Mike Straphorn calls a “slippery slope”:

First it’s art, but what makes you think it will stop there? Next it’ll be sports or something, and any time you want to make a comment like what a foul-up Richie Ashburn was, you’ll get fined or maybe imprisoned. That’s a crock of sh*t! Nothing should be free from criticism. Nothing is sacred. Well, except maybe religion, but that’s different. People get really offended when you screw with their beliefs. Everything else, though, is up for grabs.

Obama is expected to sign the bill today.⁶

–

1. Not really. [<]
2. Sarkozy’s got his burka in a wad. [<]
3. He might as well have. [<]
4. No, she didn’t. [<]
5. No, he didn’t. [<]
6. No one ever reads footnotes. Oh, you want the straight dope? Here ya go. [<]