Master of Mass Communication (MMC)
Legal scholars said the National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley decision would create a "chilling effect" in government subsidy programs, and it unlawfully expanded the government speech doctrine. By analyzing cases that subsequently use Finley for a substantive part of their rationale, this article argues the opposite: the courts have rejected the government's attempts to interpret the decision as one that allows viewpoint discrimination and have not allowed the government to further a broad reading of the decision. The article also argues that, under the government speech doctrine, Finley provides the controlling precedent for truly "hybrid speech" cases where the government and private voices are equally responsible for the speech that occurs. These cases involve "excellence criteria," in which private voices are selectively chosen by the government. In these cases, Finley should apply.
Document Availability at the Time of Submission
Release the entire work immediately for access worldwide.
Gaddy, James, ""Don't pooh-pooh our poo poo": penalty, subsidy, and refusal to fund in the aftermath of National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley" (2004). LSU Master's Theses. 4272.