"Scalia said Thursday he believes the government did not violate the First Amendment in the case of the Serrano photo - it did not pass any law to throw the 'modern day DaVinci' into jail nor did it stop him from displaying his art, he said.Let's review the relevant Constitutional language:
'I can truly understand the discomfort with government making artistic choices, but the only remedy is to get government out of funding,' he told the audience."
"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech. . ." (1st Amendment).Justice Scalia argues that when government spends money it can spend it on any art it wants, and that, what government cannot constitutionally do is make a law that would constrain what someone else wants to say through his or her art.
It seems to me this is the plain meaning of the language we find in our Constitution. What do you think?