(Why) Is non-representational art protected by the 1st Amendment?
Richard.Kay at law.uconn.edu
Tue Oct 13 13:28:22 PDT 2009
I am wondering now about the activity that is intended to express an idea
but that, on any objective view, is incapable of communicating that idea.
I throw a rock through the law school window and truthfully attest that it
is meant to arouse concern for Chinese oppression in Tibet. If that
doesn't qualify for prima facie first amendment protection why should a
piece of non-representational art intended to destabilize or affirm or
ignore some social values? Because it's paint on a canvas? Is because it
was meant to be looked at?
Wallace Stevens Professor of Law
University of Connecticut
School of Law
65 Elizabeth St
Hartford, CT 06105
Tel (860) 570-5262
Fax (860) 570-5242
Please address all future mail to richard.kay at law.uconn.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Conlawprof