(Why) Is non-representational art protected by the 1st Amendment?

Richard Kay 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?


Richard S.Kay 
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...
URL: <http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20091013/160ce5b0/attachment.htm>

More information about the Conlawprof mailing list