Supreme Court declines to hear theatre smoking ban case

The Supreme Court of the United States has declined to hear Curious Theatre Company v. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, meaning that the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling that smoking can be banned from a stage stands. This means that issues could arise in any state where there is a catch-all smoking ban in public areas, without an exemption for theater performance or at least exemptions on a case-by-case basis.

Colorado goes beyond banning smoking tobacco though. The law that was upheld includes cloves and any plant product that is used for smoking. Herbal cigarettes for the stage are thus thrown out. If one wants to perform a play that requires smoking, they’ll have to use a fake cigarette that puffs out talcum powder when you blow into the air with it. The court seems to think that this is a perfectly good alternative for expression.

As one who has used and seen fake cigarettes in a play, they do nothing more than make it seem that the character is smoking a piece of chalk. Let’s say a scene in a play takes place in an old smoky bar. The cigarette evokes the proper atmosphere for the audience, and they can be brought into the author’s imagination. A fake cigarette just makes the audience aware that they are watching a play with some cheesy props.

So, if you find yourself wanting to direct a show in any one of the following states, you may want to hold off on that production of Glengarry Glen Ross because you might run into some problems:

Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Kansas (effective July 1, 2010), Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin (effective July 5, 2010)

You should be okay in Arizona, California, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and, on a case-by-case basis, New York.

Let’s just hope that the states that have the ban without the exemption are fans of good theater.

Student’s film removed from Boston University classroom

NCAC recently fielded a plea for help from a Boston University student filmmaker, at the College of Communication, whose film Wake Up had been removed from regular class consideration and critique for reasons which depended very much on point of view. The student thought it was art. The faculty called it pornography.

What was not in dispute was that the student had included sexually explicit content in the film, his choice consciously made to point up the limits of allowable expression in the forums in which he and his peers work. From Prof. Charlie Anderson’s perspective, however, the work was “pornographic” and “created a hostile environment for my students.” Prof. Anderson and his colleagues cited the BU sexual harassment policy as their grounds for excluding the film from regular consideration and made significant efforts to navigate what they judged to be choppy waters: the strait between the Scylla of sexually-harassing students and the Charybdis of censoring their work.

BU’s College of Communication deserves an A- for effort but a C for execution. In the NCAC’s view, BU’s sexual harassment policy is not rightly applied to restrict the content of student artwork offered in good faith for the completion of class assignments. In its letter to Dr. Tammy Vigil, Associate Dean of BU’s College of Communication, NCAC articulated its position:

Screening a sexually explicit film in the context of a university-level filmmaking class attended by a mixed group of college-age students may be troubling, challenging, even offensive to some, but it does not constitute sexual harassment according to BU’s policy as it simply does not represent “pervasive” or “severe” conduct “directed at an individual.” To assert the policy in this case twists it to serve the goal of segregating controversial material and, we believe, does a disservice to sexual harassment’s real victims.

The prejudicial segregation and exclusion from the educational process of material troubling to some opens the door to removal of other content deemed offensive (whether sexual, political, religious, etc.), a bad precedent to set, especially at the College of Communication. College offers young artists, writers and filmmakers the chance to experiment, test boundaries, explore different creative paths, and even to be provocative. Discriminating against work that may be disturbing or offensive interferes with that process. After all, many well-regarded films, artworks and novels contain sexually explicit – or otherwise controversial – content. Explicit sexual content has an established place in film history: Baise-moi, Fireworks, Flaming Creatures, In the Realm of the Senses, Irreversible, Last Tango in Paris, all are examples of controversial works without which the history of film would be much the poorer. Students may or may not yet wield skills and techniques equal to the power of the material they choose, but that is exactly what their education is for.

NCAC recommended that in future, COM should insure students’ creative freedom by reminding them that serious studies may bring encounters with material they personally dislike or even find disturbing. BU should clearly remind its students and faculty of its own policy: that “[n]o university can or should guarantee that every idea expressed in its classrooms or laboratories will be inoffensive to all; pursued seriously, education and scholarship necessarily entail raising questions about received opinions and conventional interpretations.” We heartily agree.

What’s new in Censorship News, Summer 2010

Get news in your inbox. Submit your email address to receive Censorship News delivered straight to you. You’ll get a pdf of the print version of Censorship News as well as regular updates on censorship issues.

In this issue of Censorship News, an Indiana community ponders the value of Toni Morrison’s Song of Solomon: To read, or Not to Read, that is the Question!

We discuss the recent controversies over textbooks in Tennessee and Texas, two states where the chainsaw-roar of censorship has been heard for generations. As the article argues, today’s textbook censors are wielding subtler weapons in their efforts to get rid of ideas which don’t conform to their political and religious beliefs.

Here’s an excerpt from “Tusslin’ Over Textbooks in Tennessee and Texas“:

Teaching ideological conformity with any agenda – right or left – will not produce the informed, independent-minded citizens U.S. democracy urgently needs.

In The First Amendment in the Courts we review several cases concerning controversial issues, including the ban on sales of violent videos games to minors; a Reverend’s right to hold anti-gay demonstrations during military funerals; spending limits in electioneering communications; and the legality of depictions of “animal cruelty”.

In “Living in Interesting Times,” executive Director Joan Bertin argues for the importance of opening up, not limiting, children’s access to a variety of material necessary for their intellectual growth. She explains that, in the face of rapidly developing technologies that are transforming society, “effort to protect kids by insulating them is ultimately doomed.”

Read our roundup of some of the top censorship stories in The Long and the Short of It.  You can also download a pdf of this newsletter.

Want More? Browse the Censorship News archives.

Tampon photo incites controversy at the Fashion Institute

“FIT endorses the right of artists to freely express their views through their work” reads a sign at the beginning of a student photography show on display in one of the institute’s lobbies. The sign also warns that artwork may be inappropriate for some people. That didn’t stop the Dean from requesting that a photograph by Jessica Chow be covered up. The work is composed of a number of seemingly used tampons on a bright red background. No other images in the exhibition are covered, in spite of the fact that they sometimes contain disturbing material like a woman’s face bearing traces of violence.

In a recent blog post about this incident, Chow describes her disappointment, saying:

I really need to put this on my priority to-do list, fight censorship at this school I am at.  I do not know what I am going to do/how/etc, I have attempted to start however, and I really do damned hope I keep this going.  This should be a nice first project for me as a newly accepted advertising/marketing student right?

Even though the photograph has not been entirely removed from the show, the act of covering it up is a classic act of censorship. The flap – which may be taken as an intended part of the work as there is no sign explaining its appearance – completely changes the message of Chow’s piece and suggests there is something possibly obscene/shameful/indecent about the image.

Chow also criticizes the school’s squeamishness towards her subject:

and like many people who saw my piece have said “this is an art school, are you kidding me?!”  So much hypocrisy.

The work in question is clearly not obscene (it is not even sexual). In fact, there is a long tradition of art work that shows – without shame – objects that are part of women’s daily lives (Judy Chicago’s Red Flag is one of the most well know of these works).

As an educational institution, the Fashion Institute of Technology should uphold principles of academic freedom in the classroom as well as in showing student work. Its administrators should reconsider their decision to treat an image of tampons – ordinary enough objects – as shameful and dangerous. There should be flaps over every image in the student show or over none of them.

UPDATE: As of May 18, 2010, the scrim has been removed from the photograph!

Fear and censorship: Or, how strong is our commitment to free speech?

Violence against those who create and disseminate controversial words and images is not new. But for the last couple of centuries, commitment to free speech has trumped fear of violence in Western liberal democracies. As late as 1989, Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses continued to be published and read in the face of a fatwa issued against its author and in the face of the murder and attempted murder of its translators and publishers.

Something changed in the new century. Perceived or real threats of violence are increasingly successful in suppressing speech. The attacks of September 2001 and subsequent bombings in Madrid and London brought fear of terrorist violence to the heart of liberal democracies. A new choice materialized between safety and freedom. In 2004, the opening night performance of Behzti, a play written by a British Sikh playwright, was canceled after violence erupted among protesters gathered around the theatre. In the same year, Theo Van Gogh, a Dutch film director, was murdered, ostensibly as a response to his film Submission. Hirsi Ali, who wrote the script and provided the voice-over for the film went into hiding.

These events catalyzed a series of articles, one of which, “The Face of Muhammad,” included twelve cartoons, some depicting Mohamed. These cartoons became the focus of a series of violent demonstrations organized in February 2006 in the Middle East. The world of free speech has never been the same since.

Threats of violence against words and images are not the sole province of religious extremists. As early as 2005 a politically controversial professor’s scheduled visit to Hamilton College was canceled due to alleged threats of violence. In 2008, SFAI closed an exhibition of work by Adel Abdessemed in response to violent threats against faculty members.

LGBTQ-themed book removed from New Jersey high school library

The Rancocas Valley School Board in Mt. Holly, New Jersey, chose to remove one of the three challenged books at its meeting on May 4. Revolutionary Voices: A Multicultural Queer Youth Anthology and two other books were challenged because they appear on a list of books on GLBTQ themes created by the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN).

The objectors say they’re not hostile to gay-themed material, only to books that “sexualize” children. But that’s hard to square with other statements that they oppose all books on the GLSEN list. In a joint letter with the National Council of Teachers of English, American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, and others, NCAC addressed the widespread misunderstanding about the grounds for removing materials from public school libraries, saying

There is no question that these books are not obscene. Whatever members of the community may think about them, the books have socially redeeming value because they inform the reader about the experience of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, and questioning (GLBTQ) youth. Indeed, two of these books are collections of contributions by teens and young adults reflecting on their own real life experiences.

Lambda Legal also joined the effort with their own letter specifically addressing public schools’ interests and obligations to protect LGBTQ students’ safety and wellbeing. Removing those titles not only puts openly LGBTQ students at risk for social disapproval, but also threatens their access to information relevant to their lives. The library is there so that students can explore books based on their own interests, experiences, and family values, and is the place where many different view-points should be able to co-exist.

This victory may embolden these folks and others to try to remove books on the GLSEN list from other schools and libraries. NCAC is keeping a close watch on the situation and will keep you updated on any future developments.

Temecula’s cultural life remains in the hands of city official’s subjective tastes

Temecula city management, which was responsible for removing a nude artwork from an exhibition in January, has decided not to create a written policy for the selection of artworks in city-owned exhibition spaces. Instead, Temecula’s Community Services Director Herman Parker (or someone designated by him) will partake in the selection process.

NCAC Director of Programs, Svetlana Mintcheva, says:

It is precisely the recent record of city officials’ ‘involvement’ in art selection … that prompted us to demand that Temecula adopt a clear policy of art selection. Otherwise art in Temecula will be held hostage to the subjective whims and tastes of city officials. This will not only impoverish cultural offerings in the city, it will also expose it to possible liability under First Amendment claims.

Parker, who confesses not to have an art background, appears confident that his opinion will suffice:

I know what appeals to me, what I like, and I’ll base a lot of my decisions on the quality of the work and basically what appeals to me … I feel I’ve been around art and the arts community to determine what I feel is good quality art.

That the selection of public art in Temecula ultimately rests in the hands of a public official who believes that the city’s cultural life should be limited to art which “appeals” to him is likely to impoverish the cultural life of the city, as well as put the city at risk of legal liability for violating the First Amendment. As a city official, Parker is not permitted to impose his viewpoint on the public art selection process. We will be watching.