Editorial

NEW YORK MAYOR DOESN'T HAVE FREE-SPEECH RIGHTS TOO?

This article comes from our electronic archive and has not been reviewed. It may contain glitches.

In making its case before a federal judge in New York, the Brooklyn Museum of Art said its First Amendment rights had been violated by Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's threat to cut off funding after an obscene exhibit opened. The judge agreed and issued a preliminary injunction against the mayor, saying the city's action was "directly related, not just to the content of the exhibit, but to the particular viewpoints expressed."Those viewpoints, if you want to look at it that way, are disgusting. So it is curious that the federal judge thinks the museum has a right to its disgusting viewpoint, but the mayor doesn't have a First Amendment right to call it obscene or to cut off the monthly $500,000 payment of a multimillion-dollar commitment to the museum.

At the court hearing, the city argued it was appropriate to cut off funding because the museum broke its lease, which requires the museum to educate schoolchildren and the public. In the city's view, obscene art doesn't do that. Sounds likes a good freedom-of-speech argument, doesn't it?