Banned and Discarded

Author: Ahlem Hammond

Read time: 8 min

Published: May 18, 2025

What is the point in putting tremendous effort into a piece of art if it can instantly be banned and discarded? The discussion of censorship in America has been a ceaseless debate that has taken root in conversation back when the First Amendment was created and freedom of expression was written into law. However, even with our rights being legal, that has not stopped the countless betrayals of trust the public has endured, of being censored and shut down since the Constitution was enacted. If not stopped, the continuation of art censorship will result in a world where we are afraid to express ourselves. Citizens' rights will continue to be infringed upon, and the historical use of art censorship as a tool by government entities to shut down opposing views will only continue to be propelled due to the push-back against progressive movements.

THE BEGINNING OF CENSORSHIP LAWS

Understanding the reasons behind the creation of the First Amendment and the laws that built the foundation of our rights and freedoms is crucial because it gives us a better understanding of why they were created. In the latter half of the 1700s, the United States had numerous colonies with settlers of various religions, such as Puritans, Separatists, Anglicans, Lutherans, and many more. Leading up to this point, the colony had a history of “religious leaders often carrying political influence rivaling that of appointed government officials” (“State-Established religion in the colonies”). For instance, Angelical clergy members were tasked with collecting taxes from colonists to pay their local government, and those who refused were often criminally charged by the authorities. However, many within the colonies disapproved of religion playing a role in politics, and by the time the United States declared independence in 1776, “the Continental Congress generally agreed that forcing the public to worship beneath a state-run church was antithetical to the freedoms they were working to establish” (“State-Established religion in the colonies”). So when the Constitution was drafted at the Constitutional Convention, the delegates present, known as the Framers, were acutely aware that citizens’ freedoms needed to be protected and written into law, without interference from religion (“State-Established religion in the colonies”).

CENSORSHIP PROTECTION LAWS

Citizens’ knowledge about their rights is paramount, so when situations arise in which their rights are encroached upon, they will be educated enough to notice and act on it. When the First Amendment was created, the Framers knew that freedom of expression was a fundamental right to be protected. This was not only recognized, but “the Establishment Clause made it clear that the federal government was not allowed to create an established religion” (Fisher). The Framers not only acknowledged the importance of expression without religious bounds, but went as far as to define the promotion of the 'useful arts' as one of the government’s purposes” (Teninbaum). When looking at the protection the First Amendment provides to artistic expression, government entities such as “the Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment's protection of artistic expression very broadly, as it extends not only to books, theatrical works, and paintings but also to posters, television, music videos, and comic books -- whatever the human creative impulse produces” (Tennibaum). However, despite this salient recognition of religion not being imposed on citizens, and the arts to be protected, “artistic expression has historically been subject to some measure of direct or indirect censorship in the United States due to religion” (Teninbaum). Which has gone against the basic principles that the constitution stood and was created for.

ART CENSORSHIP EARLY CASES

To understand the current landscape of art censorship in the United States, it’s important to look back at how historical forces shaped it. As already established, one of the major reasons the Constitution was created was to push back against religious control in the colonies, which is why freedom of religion was established as a core right. However, religious influences didn’t vanish when the Constitution was enacted. Instead, in the late 1800s, as modernist movements began challenging Victorian-era puritanical values, tensions rose, particularly around issues of morality and decency in art. An early case of censorship came when “Michelangelo was accused of immorality and obscenity by Cardinal Carafa because he had painted nude figures, with the genitals in evidence. A censorship campaign was thus organized (known as the "campaign of fig leaves") to cover the obscenities of the frescoes by Daniele da Volterra” (De Campos et al. 968). During this time, art also became a tool for political and social commentary, often highlighting issues like labor exploitation, class inequality, and the harsh realities of industrial life. Such works were viewed as radical or subversive, especially when they challenged capitalist values. Meanwhile, conservative groups and religious organizations pushed for stricter censorship laws to protect public decency. The Comstock Laws of 1873 restricted the distribution of “obscene” materials, including art with nudity or sexual content. These laws reflected broader anxieties about social change, as urbanization, immigration, and reform movements clashed with traditional Christian morality (Winny). For many, art that challenged these values was seen as a threat to the moral fabric of the nation. Censorship became a way to preserve the status quo in the face of growing calls for social progress. Ultimately, art censorship during the late 1800s to early 1900s reflected a deep struggle over America’s identity between modern expression and conservative control.

THE SHIFT IN PUBLIC OPINION AND THE POLITICAL CLIMATE

The shift in public opinion surrounding art censorship began to take shape in the mid-20th century, marking a dramatic departure from the earlier conservative, religious-driven societal restrictions. Following World War II, a cultural shift swept across the United States, fueled by the rise of Abstract Expressionism. Artists such as Greenberg-Rosenberg began to reject traditional techniques and themes in favor of emotionally charged, abstract forms that emphasized personal freedom, which became “indicative of the fate of culture in the latter half of the past century and artistic autonomy” ("The Critical Moment”). While these works were initially met with confusion and resistance from a more conservative audience, they also signaled a broader change in how Americans viewed art as something that could be abstract, provocative, and deeply personal. The 1960s continued this momentum with the rise of the Civil Rights Movement, feminism, and other social revolutions. Controversies in the 1980s and 1990s, such as Robert Mapplethorpe’s explicit photography and Andres Serrano’s Piss Christ, fueled political clashes during “what would come to be known as the Culture Wars; Conservative leaders called for defunding the National Endowment for the Arts, arguing that taxpayer money should not support what was deemed offensive (Adiv). However, these high-profile debates also sparked nationwide conversations about the role of government in regulating artistic expression (Adiv). What was once easily silenced by conservative values was now defended in courtrooms and galleries alike, showing society's slow, willing increase to protect expression, even when it discomforted the mainstream.

MODERN CENSORSHIP CASES

While the mid-to-late 20th century ushered in greater protections for artistic freedom, art censorship in the United States has never fully disappeared, it has simply evolved. Today, art censorship is often shown by targets towards institutions through funding threats, vague laws, passive-aggressive actions, and digital platforms rather than direct bans. Ever-growing social media platforms and subsequent social movements that have taken place with them have led to a greater awareness of hurtful actions that were once normalized. Yet, greater awareness also comes with more significant pushback from those who disagree with progressive movements. For instance, a case of modern censorship took place in an elementary school in San Diego where a teacher told four students they needed to redo their art projects after “taking issue with their thematic focus on Black Lives Matter (BLM) and throwing the artworks in the trash” (Teninbaum). Fortunately, this act violated the California Education Code (ACLU), which led to the parents pushing back, and the ACLU siding with the parents that the teacher's actions did go against the California Education Code. However, this act shows how political expression in today's modern society is still seen as controversial in educational spaces (Tennibaum). The modern political landscape has also introduced new forms of indirect censorship that target institutions and funding sources rather than artists themselves. Idaho's "No Public Funds for Abortion Act," for example, doesn’t allow any public funding to go to organizations that promote, refer to, or even discuss abortion. FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression) criticized the law's vague language and noted “how it has led colleges to equate mere mentions of abortion with prohibited advocacy” (“Freedom of Expression in the Arts and Entertainment”). Such legislation places pressure on schools and public institutions to “self-censor out of fear of losing funding-stifling academic and creative work in the process” (“Freedom of Expression in the Arts and Entertainment”). Unlike past decades, where art was censored through obscenity laws or public outrage, today's efforts are often subtler and more institutionalized, showing that while the forms of censorship have changed, the suppression of controversial topics remains deeply rooted in American society.

THE HARM AND CONSEQUENCES OF ART CENSORSHIP

Art censorship not only silences individual voices but also strips society of the critical perspective that drives social and cultural progress. When controversial or challenging art is removed or suppressed, it prevents important conversation from happening. While it is understandable why people want to avoid conversations about topics that are difficult, “Censorship denies citizens the opportunity to understand and engage with complex realities - even those that make us uncomfortable” (Leadingham). This silencing disproportionately affects marginalized communities, whose experiences are often deemed too political or offensive for mainstream platforms, while also using religion and morality as the excuse (Gorlewski). From student artwork supporting Black Lives Matter to public installations tackling systemic injustices, censorship often targets art that challenges power structures. Without these expressions, society loses the opportunity to grow, reflect, and empathize.

WHAT SHOULD BE DONE AND THE FUTURE OF ART CENSORSHIP

Moving forward, it is essential that legal protections for artistic expression remain strong and that public institutions commit to defending creative freedom. Educating the public about First Amendment rights and encouraging open conversation around controversial art. As the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) states, “Art is a form of expression protected by the Constitution - even when it challenges conventional thinking” (“Freedom of Expression in the arts and entertainment”). Looking ahead, the future of art censorship in the U.S. will likely continue to be shaped by cultural tensions, but with increased public awareness and legal precedent, there is hope for society to embrace discomfort as a pathway for art to thrive.

CONCLUSION

Even though the First Amendment was created to protect freedom of expression, religion and morality have continued to shape what’s considered “acceptable” in art. From early obscenity laws to today’s vague bills and funding threats, censorship hasn't gone away, it’s just changed forms. Artists are still being silenced, especially in those whose work challenges power, touches on politics, or pushes back against traditional values. Whether it’s student projects being trashed or institutions being forced to self-center out of fear, the message is the same: certain ideas are still too controversial. If people do not speak up and defend creative freedom, art will keep getting filtered through what’s comfortable instead of what’s true. And in a country built on free expression, that’s something worth fighting against.

Works Cited

Adiv, Naomi. “Goodbye to the National Endowment for the Arts?” Arts & International Affairs, 7 Feb. 2018,

Affairs.https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1199&context=usp_fac#:~:text=NEA%20funding%20climbed%20for%20two,the%20last%20decade%20or%20so.

American Civil Liberties Union. “Freedom of Expression in the Arts and Entertainment.” American Civil Liberties Union, 14 Sept. 2005, https://www.aclu.org/documents/freedom-expression-arts-and-entertainment.

De Campos, D., et al. “Michelangelo, the Last Judgment Fresco, Saint Bartholomew, and the

Golden Ratio.” Clinical Anatomy, vol. 28, no. 8, 2015, pp. 967–971. Wiley Online Library,

https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.22612.

Fisher, Dennis. “Freedom of Speech.” The Free Speech Center, 11 Apr. 2025, https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/freedom-of-speech/.

Gorlewski, Julie. “Censorship Hinders Critical Thinking and Infringes on Readers’ Rights.” Learn Magazine, University at Buffalo Graduate School of Education, 14 Nov. 2023,

https://ed.buffalo.edu/magazine/issues/fall-2023/censorship.html

Leadingham, B. S. A. “Art Censorship: First Amendment Violation or Private Free Speech?” Freedom Forum, 27 June 2024,

https://www.freedomforum.org/art-censorship/.

“State-Established Religion in the Colonies.” LII / Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, n.d., https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/state-established-religion-in-the-colonies.

Teninbaum, Gabe. (2024, July 9). Art censorship. The Free Speech Center. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/art-censorship/

“The Critical Moment.” National Endowment for the Humanities, n.d..

https://www.neh.gov/humanities/2008/julyaugust/feature/the-critical-moment.

Winny, Annalies. “How the Comstock Act Threatens Abortion Rights.” Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 31 May 2024, https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2024/how-the-comstock-act-threatens-abortion-rights.