A new debate has emerged on free speech yet again in the United States. That argument is about whether art’s free speech is too harsh, just fine, or too light. But to answer that, one would have to ask themselves, “Should art classify under the First Amendment, and, more importantly, what is art?” In my opinion, art should be put under the same standards as all the other types of speech. Almost anything can be classified as art, and not all art can pass the Miller Test, however, we don’t need to ban all art.
The main problem with freedom of speech and art is that anything can be classified as art. Some of the main examples include statues of Confederate Generals in the United States, Terrorist Promotional Posters, and other sorts of derogatory and offensive pictures. One of the things that can prove that anything can be art is Fountain, 1917 by a famous artist, Marcel Duchamp. While some people thought it was talentless and crude, other proclaimed it to be “Avant-Garde,” or the new wave of art. However, while this seems to be a funny version of my statement, others exist too. Racist pictures and drawings can be considered art, while hateful, while some terrorist groups use art to attempt to recruit people. All in all, art is like a weapon. It can be used in good ways and in bad ways.
…show more content…
The main strategy that is used to determine whether art is offensive or not is called the Miller Test, or the three prong obscenity test. The three prongs