[JamesBarney]

I'm probably missing some context, but I'm not sure what about politician's arguing what artists the NEA should fund is against the 1st amendment.

> This was ruled a violation of the First Amendment: https://ncac.org/news/blog/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-a...

It looks like that ruling was just because it was racist, and has since been overturned at the circuit court. Maybe I don't understand something, but the government fundamentally determines what does and does not get taught in public schools.

[joshuamorton]

Two things to consider:

1. There's a difference between defining a curriculum (what needs to be taught) and banning things (what cannot be taught). The government is generally allowed to determine the first, but the second is more dubious. It's difficult to claim, for example, that banning certain books has a legitimate interest in improving academic freedom, as educators already had the freedom to not teach those books.

2. This specific example is from a university, where "defining a curriculum" is even more dubious due to the existence of elective classes. If a university wants to, in addition to its core curricula, offer a class on racial or gender studies, why is that any less legitimate than a class on water polo or whatever?

[noelwelsh]

I don't think this is a productive conversation so this is my final response.

NEA: again, what do you think is an action against free speech if not someone organizing action against an art exhibition?

Ruling: I couldn't find anything about the circuit court overturning the ruling. Here is a direct quote from the article, emphasis mine: "After a lengthy trial, Judge Tashima wrote in an interim opinion yesterday, that the Arizona Superintendent’s office violated the First ... Amendment"