N.E.A. v. Finley: Art funding and the First Amendment. A case study

The hypothesis which underlies this thesis is that the recent Supreme Court decision in June 1998, NEA v. Finley, reflects conflicting legal theories of First Amendment law in the area of public funding of speech. Various doctrines, or pseudo doctrines, used by legal scholars to explain First Amendment concerns when government funds artistic speech will be analyzed thoroughly. The analysis of the Finley case made by the lower courts, in conjunction with some of the cases used by the Supreme Court, will be analyzed in order to explain the various legal doctrines in the field of federal funding. This paper will demonstrate that, while the legal theories are left intact, the "decency and respect language" both shields and protects the NEA from criticism, while the First Amendment protects the federally funded NEA recipient.