Federal Funding of Artwork

[A18]

Clearly unconstitutional.

You'd have a hard time making that argument.  General Welfare might not apply to local theaters and art shows, but a lot of the funding is for broadcasts, which reach pretty much everyone.

How is that relevant?

[Emsworth]

Clearly unconstitutional.

You'd have a hard time making that argument.  General Welfare might not apply to local theaters and art shows, but a lot of the funding is for broadcasts, which reach pretty much everyone.

How is that relevant?

Quite so. Artwork is clearly and firmly in the realm of state power, and is therefore beyond the reach of the general welfare clause. The fact that it might affect people in different parts of the country is not the sole factor in determining if the general welfare clause's requirements have been met.

[Dave from Michigan]

I oppose federal funding for any art.

[Speed of Sound]

Yes/Yes Art is important to our society. Too important for us to ignore it

[Blue Rectangle]

Clearly unconstitutional.

You'd have a hard time making that argument.  General Welfare might not apply to local theaters and art shows, but a lot of the funding is for broadcasts, which reach pretty much everyone.

How is that relevant?

Quite so. Artwork is clearly and firmly in the realm of state power, and is therefore beyond the reach of the general welfare clause. The fact that it might affect people in different parts of the country is not the sole factor in determining if the general welfare clause's requirements have been met.

I agree.  I was just pointing out that despite the fact that we all think it is un-Con-Stitutional, the Court would uphold it based on a general welfare argument.  I'm not familiar with the history of rulings on pork.  Maybe you can give me some examples.  How would you show injury?

[The Duke]

Of course a piece of artwork that depicts sodomy, but does not constitute pornography, should be eligible for government funding.  It would be a difficult tightrope to walk, though, to achieve such a thing.

[The Duke]

I also want to point out that an underlying assumption of Ebowed',s poll is that sodomy should violate our morals.  Otherwise why seperate sodomy from art that does not violate our morals?

[Ebowed]

I also want to point out that an underlying assumption of Ebowed',s poll is that sodomy should violate our morals.  Otherwise why seperate sodomy from art that does not violate our morals?

I don't say sodomy should violate our morals.  If sodomy doesn't violate your morals, you are still free to vote for any of the options in the poll (except Yes/No, that wouldn't really make sense).

[12th Doctor]

I also want to point out that an underlying assumption of Ebowed',s poll is that sodomy should violate our morals.  Otherwise why seperate sodomy from art that does not violate our morals?

I don't say sodomy should violate our morals.  If sodomy doesn't violate your morals, you are still free to vote for any of the options in the poll (except Yes/No, that wouldn't really make sense).

I think the point we are both trying to make is that there is a wide gap between depictions of that which is sexual, and that which is blatantly pornographic.  David for instance is not pornographic.

[opebo]

I strongly support Federal funding of artwork, particularly those works containing/depicting sodomy.

[nini2287]

I strongly support Federal funding of artwork, particularly those works containing/depicting sodomy.

Any reason artwork containing/depicting sodomy should be favored over any old artwork?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Arts funding is always a complicated issue; while I think that it's a good idea in some cases a lot of the money is wasted on "modern art" and similer elitist rubbish.
I don't think that you can justify spending taxpayers money on pornography. I don't think that you can justify spending taxpayers money on an unmade bed or a pile of bricks*. I do think that you can justify t
axpayers money being spent on bringing culture to people who would otherwise be unable to acess it... spending in on a load of self-obsessed elitist or bullsh*t runs against the whole point of spending money on art IMO.
The sad thing about any debate about the arts is that it tends to be dominated by elitists on either side...

*I have kicked the Pile Of Bricks in the Tate Modern before. Felt good about that

[opebo]

I strongly support Federal funding of artwork, particularly those works containing/depicting sodomy.

Any reason artwork containing/depicting sodomy should be favored over any old artwork?

No, of course not.  Just a personal preference of mine.  Also it is nice to piss off the prudes.