NewEnglandFilm.com

For better or for worse, this moment in history, marked by its Internet Filters, Parental Advisory Stickers, channel blocking TV, and Patriot Act, may one day be remembered as an American age of security. The Free Expression Policy Project is drawing attention to another matter of national security, though its interest is not in prohibition. The goal of the New York-based think tank is to protect artistic freedom of expression from political attack, and prevent the use of money as a weapon to control state arts agencies.

The organization, under the leadership of Executive Director Marjorie Heins, is a passionate advocate of education and accessible information about state policy. The Free Expression Policy Project is intended as an alternative to the cycle of media hype and lawsuits that seem to shadow every controversy bringing the arts to front-page news. First and foremost however, The Free Expression Policy Project, with its emphasis on media literacy, is an alternative to censorship.

Heins, a former ACLU lawyer, described her think tank’s interest as "empowering as opposed to restrictive," not unlike her previous experiences as an advocate of free expression. At the height of the frantic controversies and media frenzies of the early ‘90’s, Heins directed the ACLU Art Censorship Project. She published a book, Not In Front Of the Children, in response to the tried and true right-wing justification for censorship, (that restrictive policy protects children from corrupting influences). Before joining the National Coalition Against Censorship affiliated Free Expression Policy Project, Heins was clearly at the center of the explosion of debate that marked the decade beginning with Piss Christ.

The Free Expression Policy Project’s Policy Report, produced from the results of the organization’s extensive national survey, details the specifics of individual state’s policies on artistic liberty. The 2003 report illustrates some difference in interpretation of artistic freedom, but most states’ policy statements included some assurance of artistic freedom. Under the report’s heading "State Laws Recognizing Artistic Freedom," The Free Expression Policy Project "found 32 state arts agencies with enabling legislation that explicitly recognizes artistic freedom." Most of the state laws cited were passed in the ‘60’s; of the New England states mentioned by the report as having "enabling legislation…‘encouraging and assisting’" artistic freedom, are Connecticut, Maine and New Hampshire (’65), and Rhode Island (’67).

From there, the report provides further explanation of individual state policies. The language in California’s arts funding law, for example, "did not seem to us explicit enough to qualify as a statement in support of artistic freedom," according to the report. However, some states, including Rhode Island and New Hampshire, go a step further in ensuring artistic and intellectual freedom. The report found four states "whose governing laws do not explicitly mention artistic freedom, but…announced free-expression policies…"

The above mentioned state agency laws obviously precede the brouhaha of 14 years ago, but the report is as explicit as those laws claim to be on artistic freedom, when it comes to how they have been since enforced. To make sense of the changes some states made to their laws in the wake of the NEA crisis, and how recent incidents occurred despite them, The Free Expression Policy Project provides a detailed introduction on its web site.

The ‘Background,’ section of The Free Expression Policy Project web site chronicles the last 14 years beginning with the initial controversy surrounding the National Endowment for the Arts (hardly a household name at the time). What began with a handful of senators offended by the now famous Piss Christ, by Andres Serrano, became almost 200 federal legislators railing against the NEA. Their outcry that the NEA’s support of the work of Serrano, Mapplethorpe and other controversial artists was a gross misuse of taxpayer money, received a lot of national attention. The subsequent media circus provoked the self-censorship of arts funding organizations; the Corcoran in Washington D.C. pulled out of the traveling Mapplethorpe exhibition, and some agencies tried to avoid the spotlight by cutting grants to controversial artists.

By 1990, Congress had passed the ‘decency and respect’ law, the NEA had succumbed to the media and legislative pressure, and four controversial artists, led by Karen Finley, who were subsequently denied grants previously awarded by the NEA, sued.

As mentioned, some states changed their policies to protect themselves from political retaliation, including New Hampshire. More important however, this crisis, and the 1995 slashing of the NEA’s budget, set the precedent for organizations cautiously awarding grants in fear of political repercussions, and the establishment of the lawsuit as the solution to controversy. New Hampshire and other states with provisions for handling controversy are unfortunately still very few according to the report.

The Free Expression Policy Project aims to encourage states to respond more productively. Heins hopes to see better preparations made for controversies in the future: "by arts communities working with agencies to respond…in a productive manner and end up winning for artistic freedom." Heins draws an important distinction between winning for artistic freedom on the whole, and winning one round as in a lawsuit: "education and organizing in a community is a better way to deal with incidents than filing a law suit."

The report cited no findings that any state quoted the Congressional restrictive laws in their policies, but Idaho was listed by the report as the sole state to "shy away from explicit free-expression policies." And a few states, through armed with language advocating ‘sensitivity,’ and ‘diversity,’ found themselves under the report’s ominous heading "Policies Limiting Artistic Freedom." Heins also explained that The Free Expression Policy Project received no response from some state agencies. Though this could be interpreted as in keeping with the limitations stipulated by the policies of Louisiana, Ohio, Georgia and others, the report is limited only to states with some policy supporting or limiting artistic freedom. The report provides no section specifically listing the states that did not cooperate with The Free Expression Policy Project. Nor was there any mention of Massachusetts or Vermont among states cited in the above mentioned categories of relative support of artistic freedom.

Besides the examination of the arts funding policy of state agencies across the country, the report also includes a case study, "Four Controversies of the 1990’s." Three of the four cases were essentially utra-right wing opposition to works of art with homosexual content. Though the criticism was guided by homophobia, the organizations were still hurt by the controversy. Two of those three organizations were theatres: one in Cobb County, Georgia, that produced Lips Together, Teeth Apart by Terrence McNally in 1993; the other, the Charlotte Repertory Theatre, for staging Tony Kushner’s Angels in America in 1996.

Just recently, in 1997, The Esperanza Peace and Justice Center, in San Antonio, Texas, suffered funding cuts and lawsuits also, merely for its tolerance of homosexual artists and members of the community. Among the Center’s objectionable events was a gay and lesbian film festival. These incidents are not limited to specific groups or areas either, as the most recent event included in the report, the 1999 New York City Sensation show, an exhibition of emerging British artists, proves. The report thus emphasizes the importance of the issue of free expression policy, as it provides examples of controversy permeating the boundaries of media and region, and directed at artists of various social groups.

The range of artwork, artists and organizations that have been, or could be affected by restrictions on artistic freedom is a vast one. Heins is adamant about the importance of teaching media literacy and educating artists and the public about artistic freedom to make the relationship between the arts community and society a more productive one. Independent filmmakers would be particularly well served by such improvements. Without the corporate financial support afforded the commercial film industry, indie filmmakers are more dependent upon government funding and most vulnerable when that funding is cut. "Of all the issues," Heins said, "there is a special spot for the arts, for me. I hope [the report] is useful in helping it to flourish."