QUESTION 1 –
Post a link to any artwork and provide:
QUESTION 2
A-What emotion, mood, or state of mind was the artist trying to convey with his/her composition of the figure? Use specifics from the piece and weekly readings/videos to support your answer.
B-Was the artist trying to convey something else? Use specifics from the piece to support your answer.
C-Was the artist trying to show a global issue? Yes/NO Why?
D-Was the artist trying to engage the public in ‘looking’ at the world in a different way? Yes/No Why?
E-Was the artist trying to make a change through his/her art? Use specifics from the piece and weekly readings/videos to support your answer.
QUESTION 3
How was this achieved? Use specifics from the piece to support your answer. Tell us where to look and what to look for so that we can see what you see.
QUESTION 4
In your opinion was the artist successful or not successful in conveying the emotion, mood, or state of mind? Yes/No Why? Support your answers with evidence from readings.
READINGS ATTACHED
Number 14
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
IN THE ARTS AND ENTERTAINMENT
In the late 1980s, state prosecutors brought a criminal obscenity charge against the owner of a record store for
selling an album by the rap group, 2 Live Crew. Although this was the first time that obscenity charges had ever
been brought against song lyrics, the 2 Live Crew case focused the nation’s attention on an old question: should
the government ever have the authority to dictate to its citizens what they may or may not listen to, read, or
watch?
American society has always been deeply ambivalent about this question. On the one hand, our history is filled
with examples of overt government censorship, from the 1873 Comstock Law to the 1996 Communications
Decency Act. Anthony Comstock, head of the Society for the Suppression of Vice, boasted 194,000 “questionable
pictures” and 134,000 pounds of books of “improper character” were destroyed under the Comstock Law — in the
first year alone. The Communications Decency Act imposed an unconstitutional censorship scheme on the
Internet, accurately described by a federal judge as “the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed.”
On the other hand, the commitment to freedom of imagination and expression is deeply embedded in our national
psyche, buttressed by the First Amendment, and supported by a long line of Supreme Court decisions.
DOCUMENT
Freedom of Expression in the Arts and Entertainment
Document Date: February 27, 2002
3/4/25, 9:47 AM Freedom of Expression in the Arts and Entertainment | American Civil Liberties Union
https://www.aclu.org/documents/freedom-expression-arts-and-entertainment?redirect=free-speech/freedom-expression-arts-and-entertainment%29 1/6
Provocative and controversial art and in-your-face entertainment put our commitment to free speech to the test.
Why should we oppose censorship when scenes of murder and mayhem dominate the TV screen, when works of art
can be seen as a direct insult to peoples’ religious beliefs, and when much sexually explicit material can be seen as
degrading to women? Why not let the majority’s morality and taste dictate what others can look at or listen to?
The answer is simple, and timeless: a free society is based on the principle that each and every individual has the
right to decide what art or entertainment he or she wants — or does not want — to receive or create. Once you allow
the government to censor someone else, you cede to it the the power to censor you, or something you like.
Censorship is like poison gas: a powerful weapon that can harm you when the wind shifts.
Freedom of expression for ourselves requires freedom of expression for others. It is at the very heart of our
democracy.
SEXUAL SPEECH
Sex in art and entertainment is the most frequent target of censorship crusades. Many examples come to mind. A
painting of the classical statue of Venus de Milo was removed from a store because the managers of the shopping
mall found its semi-nudity “too shocking.” Hundreds of works of literature, from Maya Angelou’s I Know Why the
Caged Bird Sings to John Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath, have been banned from public schools based on their
sexual content.
A museum director was charged with a crime for including sexually explicit photographs by Robert Mapplethorpe
in an art exhibit.
American law is, on the whole, the most speech-protective in the world — but sexual expression is treated as a
second-class citizen. No causal link between exposure to sexually explicit material and anti-social or violent
behavior has ever been scientifically established, in spite of many efforts to do so. Rather, the Supreme Court has
allowed censorship of sexual speech on moral grounds — a remnant of our nation’s Puritan heritage.
This does not mean that all sexual expression can be censored, however. Only a narrow range of “obscene”
material can be suppressed; a term like “pornography” has no legal meaning . Nevertheless, even the relatively
narrow obscenity exception serves as a vehicle for abuse by government authorities as well as pressure groups
who want to impose their personal moral views on other people.
IS MEDIA VIOLENCE A THREAT TO SOCIETY?
Today’s calls for censorship are not motivated solely by morality and taste, but also by the widespread belief that
exposure to images of violence causes people to act in destructive ways. Pro-censorship forces, including many
politicians, often cite a multitude of “scientific studies” that allegedly prove fictional violence leads to real-life
i l
3/4/25, 9:47 AM Freedom of Expression in the Arts and Entertainment | American Civil Liberties Union
https://www.aclu.org/documents/freedom-expression-arts-and-entertainment?redirect=free-speech/freedom-expression-arts-and-entertainment%29 2/6
violence.
There is, in fact, virtually no evidence that fictional violence causes otherwise stable people to become violent.
And if we suppressed material based on the actions of unstable people, no work of fiction or art would be safe from
censorship. Serial killer Theodore Bundy collected cheerleading magazines. And the work most often cited by
psychopaths as justification for their acts of violence is the Bible.
But what about the rest of us? Does exposure to media violence actually lead to criminal or anti-social conduct by
otherwise stable people, including children, who spend an average of 28 hours watching television each week?
These are important questions. If there really were a clear cause-and-effect relationship between what normal
children see on TV and harmful actions, then limits on such expression might arguably be warranted.
WHAT THE STUDIES SHOW
Studies on the relationship between media violence and real violence are the subject of considerable debate.
Children have been shown TV programs with violent episodes in a laboratory setting and then tested for
“aggressive” behavior. Some of these studies suggest that watching TV violence may temporarily induce “object
aggression” in some children (such as popping balloons or hitting dolls or playing sports more aggressively) but
not actual criminal violence against another person.
CORRELATIONAL STUDIES that seek to explain why some aggressive people have a history of watching a lot of
violent TV suffer from the chicken-and-egg dilemma: does violent TV cause such people to behave aggressively, or
do aggressive people simply prefer more violent entertainment? There is no definitive answer. But all scientists
agree that statistical correlations between two phenomena do not mean that one causes the other.
INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS are no more helpful. Japanese TV and movies are famous for their extreme,
graphic violence, but Japan has a very low crime rate — much lower than many societies in which television
watching is relatively rare. What the sudies reveal on the issue of fictional violence and real world aggression is —
not much.
The only clear assertion that can be made is that the relationship between art and human behavior is a very
complex one. Violent and sexually explicit art and entertainment have been a staple of human cultures from time
immemorial. Many human behavioralists believe that these themes have a useful and constructive societal role,
serving as a vicarious outlet for individual aggression.
WHAT DOES ARTISTIC FREEDOM INCLUDE?
The Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment’s protection of artistic expression very broadly. 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.
3/4/25, 9:47 AM Freedom of Expression in the Arts and Entertainment | American Civil Liberties Union
https://www.aclu.org/documents/freedom-expression-arts-and-entertainment?redirect=free-speech/freedom-expression-arts-and-entertainment%29 3/6
Two fundamental principles come into play whenever a court must decide a case involving freedom of expression.
The first is “content neutrality”– the government cannot limit expression just because any listener, or even the
majority of a community, is offended by its content. In the context of art and entertainment, this means tolerating
some works that we might find offensive, insulting, outrageous — or just plain bad.
The second principle is that expression may be restricted only if it will clearly cause direct and imminent harm to
an important societal interest. The classic example is falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater and causing a
stampede. Even then, the speech may be silenced or punished only if there is no other way to avert the harm.
WHERE DO THE EXPERTS AGREE?
Whatever influence fictional violence has on behavior, most expert believe its effects are marginal compared to
other factors. Even small children know the difference between fiction and reality, and their attitudes and
behavior are shaped more by their life circumstances than by the books they read or the TV they watch. In 1972,
the U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior released a 200-page report,
“Television and Growing Up: The Impact of Televised Violence,” which concluded, “The effect [of television] is
small compared with many other possible causes, such as parental attitudes or knowledge of and experience with
the real violence of our society.” Twenty-one years later, the American Psychological Association published its
1993 report, “Violence & Youth,” and concluded, “The greatest predictor of future violent behavior is a previous
history of violence.” In 1995, the Center for Communication Policy at UCLA, which monitors TV violence, came to
a similar conclusion in its yearly report: “It is known that television does not have a simple, direct stimulus-
response effect on its audiences.”
Blaming the media does not get us very far, and, to the extent that diverts the public’s attention from the real
causes of violence in society, it may do more harm than good.
WHICH MEDIA VIOLENCE WOULD YOU BAN?
A pro-censorship member of Congress once attacked the following shows for being too violent: The Miracle
Worker, Civil War Journal, Star Trek 9, The Untouchables, and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. What would be left
if all these kinds of programs were purged from the airwaves? Is there good violence and bad violence? If so, who
decides? Sports and the news are at least as violent as fiction, from the fights that erupt during every televised
hockey game, to the videotaped beating of Rodney King by the LA Police Department, shown over and over gain
on prime time TV. If we accept censorship of violence in the media, we will have to censor sports and news
programs.
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, INDIVIDUAL DECISIONS
The First Amendment is based upon the belief that in a free and democratic society, individual adults must be free
3/4/25, 9:47 AM Freedom of Expression in the Arts and Entertainment | American Civil Liberties Union
https://www.aclu.org/documents/freedom-expression-arts-and-entertainment?redirect=free-speech/freedom-expression-arts-and-entertainment%29 4/6
to decide for themselves what to read, write, paint, draw, see and hear. If we are disturbed by images of violence or
sex, we can change the channel, turn off the TV, and decline to go to certain movies or museum exhibits.
We can also exercise our own free speech rights by voicing our objections to forms of expression that we don’t like.
Justice Louis Brandeis’ advice that the remedy for messages we disagree with or dislike in art, entertainment or
politics is “more speech, not enforced silence,” is as true today as it was when given in 1927.
Further, we can exercise our prerogative as parents without resorting to censorship. Devices now exist that make
it possible to block access to specific TV programs and internet sites. Periodicals that review books, recordings,
and films can help parents determine what they feel is appropriate for their youngsters. Viewing decisions can,
and should, be made at home, without government interference.
PORNOGRAPHIC! INDECENT! OBSCENE!
Justice John Marshall Harlan’s line, “one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric,” sums up the impossibility of
developing a definition of obscenity that isn’t hopelessly vague and subjective. And Justice Potter Stewart’s
famous assurance, “I know it when I see it,” is of small comfort to artists, writers, movie directors and lyricists
who must navigate the murky waters of obscenity law trying to figure out what police, prosecutors, judges and
juries will think.
The Supreme Court’s current definition of constitutionally unprotected Obscenity, first announced in a 1973 case
called Miller v. California, has three requirements. The work must 1) appeal to the average person’s prurient
(shameful, morbid) interest in sex; 2) depict sexual conduct in a “patently offensive way” as defined by community
standards; and 3) taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
The Supreme Court has held that Indecent expression — in contrast with “obscenity” — is entitled to some
constitutional protection, but that indecency in some media (broadcasting, cable, and telephone) may be
regulated. In its 1978 decision in Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica, the Court ruled that the
government could require radio and television stations to air “indecent” material only during those hours when
children would be unlikely listeners or viewers. Broadcast indecency was defined as: “language that describes, in
terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or
excretory activities or organs.” This vague concept continues to baffle both the public and the courts.
PORNOGRAPHY is not a legal term at all. Its dictionary definition is “writing or pictures intended to arouse
sexual desire.” Pornography comes in as many varieties as the human sexual impulse and is protected by the First
Amendment unless it meets the definition for illegal obscenity.
WHAT IS CENSORSHIP?
Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are “offensive,” happens whenever some people
3/4/25, 9:47 AM Freedom of Expression in the Arts and Entertainment | American Civil Liberties Union
https://www.aclu.org/documents/freedom-expression-arts-and-entertainment?redirect=free-speech/freedom-expression-arts-and-entertainment%29 5/6
succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the
government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.
In contrast, when private individuals or groups organize boycotts against stores that sell magazines of which they
disapprove, their actions are protected by the First Amendment, although they can become dangerous in the
extreme. Private pressure groups, not the government, promulgated and enforced the infamous Hollywood
blacklists during the McCarthy period. But these private censorship campaigns are best countered by groups and
individuals speaking out and organizing in defense of the threatened expression.
Free Speech
Related Issues
3/4/25, 9:47 AM Freedom of Expression in the Arts and Entertainment | American Civil Liberties Union
https://www.aclu.org/documents/freedom-expression-arts-and-entertainment?redirect=free-speech/freedom-expression-arts-and-entertainment%29 6/6
GE.13-11844
Human Rights Council
Twenty-third session
Agenda item
3
Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil,
political, economic, social and cultural rights,
including the right to development
Report of the Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural
rights, Farida Shaheed
The right to freedom of artistic expression and creativity*
Summary
The Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights, Ms. Farida Shaheed, submits
the present report in accordance with Human Rights Council resolution 19/6.
In this report, the Special Rapporteur addresses the multi-faceted ways in which the
right to the freedom indispensable for artistic expression and creativity may be curtailed.
She reflects upon the growing worldwide concern that artistic voices have been or are being
silenced by various means and in different ways. This report addresses laws and regulations
restricting artistic freedoms as well as economic and financial issues significantly
impacting on such freedoms. The underlying motivations are most often political, religious,
cultural or moral, or lie in economic interests, or are a combination of those.
The Special Rapporteur encourages States to critically review their legislation and
practices imposing restrictions on the right to freedom of artistic expression and creativity,
taking into consideration their obligations to respect, protect and fulfil this right. The
Special Rapporteur notes that more discussion is urgently needed in several areas that she
has considered.
* The annexes to the present report are circulated in their languages of submission only.
United Nations
A/HRC/23/34
General Assembly Distr.: General
14 March 2013
Original: English
A/HRC/23/34
2
Contents
Paragraphs Page
I. Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1–8 3
II. Legal framework ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 9–39 4
A. Protection in universal, regional and national instruments ……………………….. 9–24 4
B. Limitations to artistic freedoms ……………………………………………………………. 25–39
7
III. Restrictions and obstacles: the need for national assessments ………………………….. 40–84
9
A. Persons impacted ……………………………………………………………………………….. 42–43 9
B. Actors imposing restrictions or creating obstacles…………………………………… 44 10
C. Motivations ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 45–52 10
D. Specific measures and practices impacting on the right to freedom
of artistic expression …………………………………………………………………………… 53–84 12
IV. Conclusion and recommendations ………………………………………………………………… 85–91 18
Annexes
I. Responses to the questionnaire on the right to artistic freedom ………………………………………………. 22
II. Experts’ meeting on the right to freedom of artistic expression (Geneva, 4-5 December 2012)
– List of experts ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 24
A/HRC/23/34
3
I. Introduction
1. The present report focuses on the right to the freedom indispensable for artistic
expression and creativity, protected under articles 15 of the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and 19 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
2. Art constitutes an important vehicle for each person, individually and in community
with others, as well as groups of people, to develop and express their humanity, worldview
and meanings assigned to their existence and development. People in all societies create,
make use of, or relate to, artistic expressions and creations.
3. Artists may entertain people, but they also contribute to social debates, sometimes
bringing counter-discourses and potential counterweights to existing power centres. The
vitality of artistic creativity is necessary for the development of vibrant cultures and the
functioning of democratic societies. Artistic expressions and creations are an integral part
of cultural life, which entails contesting meanings and revisiting culturally inherited ideas
and concepts. The crucial task of implementation of universal human rights norms is to
prevent the arbitrary privileging of certain perspectives on account of their traditional
authority, institutional or economic power, or demographic supremacy in society. This
principle lies at the heart of every issue raised in the debate over the right to freedom of
artistic expression and creativity and possible limitations on that right.
4. There is no intention to propose a definition of art, or to suggest that additional
rights should be recognized for artists. All persons enjoy the rights to freedom of expression
and creativity, to participate in cultural life and to enjoy the arts. Expressions, whether
artistic or not, always remain protected under the right to freedom of expression.
5. This report aims to understand the challenges and obstacles that impede the
flourishing of artistic creativity, and make specific recommendations to overcome them.
The approach adopted is broad. The report addresses forms of expression that carry an
aesthetic and/or symbolic dimension, using different media including, but not limited to,
painting and drawing, music, songs and dances, poetry and literature, theatre and circus,
photography, cinema and video, architecture and sculpture, performances and public art
interventions, etc., irrespective of whether their content is sacred or profane, political or
apolitical, or whether it addresses social issues or not. It recognizes that artistic activity
relies on a large number of actors not reducible to the artist per se, encompassing all those
engaged in and contributing to the creation, production, distribution and dissemination of
artistic expressions and creations. The Special Rapporteur is convinced that freedom of
artistic expression and creativity cannot be dissociated from the right of all persons to enjoy
the arts, as in many cases restrictions on artistic freedoms aim at denying people access to
specific artworks. Hence, removing creative expressions from public access is a way to
restrict artistic freedom. Ironically enough, restrictions are often imposed in the name of the
public which, however, is prevented from making its own judgement.
6. Artistic expressions and creations come under particular attack because they can
convey specific messages and articulate symbolic values in a powerful way, or may be
considered as doing so. Motivations for restrictions stem from political, religious, cultural,
moral or economic interests, and disturbing cases of violations are found on all continents.1
1 First World Conference on artistic freedom of expression, Oslo, 25-26 October 2012,
http://artsfreedom.org/?p=4057.
http://artsfreedom.org/?p=4057
A/HRC/23/34
4
7. The issue of violations of artistic freedom should be addressed more
comprehensively by intergovernmental organizations. Media attention to cases of a few
prominent artists tends to eclipse the reality lived by many people engaged in artistic
activities around the world. Initiatives such as the establishment of safe cities for artists2
and the enhanced development of networks between artists and human rights defenders3
need to be supported.
8. In order to collect the views of States and other stakeholders, the Special Rapporteur
disseminated a questionnaire on the right to artistic freedom. Responses were received from
28 States and 23 other stakeholders (annex I). The Special Rapporteur convened an experts’
meeting on the issue on 4 and 5 December 2012 (annex II), and a public consultation on 6
December 2012. The Special Rapporteur is grateful to all those who contributed.
II. Legal framework
A. Protection in universal, regional and national instruments
1. Universal and regional human rights instruments
9. The most explicit provisions protecting the freedom of artistic expression and
creativity are to be found in article 15 (3) of ICESCR, under which States “undertake to
respect the freedom indispensable for…creative activity” and in article 19 (2) of ICCPR,
which states that the right to freedom of expression includes the freedom to seek, receive
and impart information and ideas of all kinds “in the form of art”. Articles 13 and 31 of the
Convention on the Rights of the Child, article 13 (1) of the American Convention on
Human Rights and article 14 of its Protocol in the area of Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights, and article 42 of the Arab Charter for Human Rights also contain such explicit
provisions. In addition, under article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR), everyone has the right “to enjoy the arts”.
10. Implicit provisions encompass those guaranteeing the right to freedom of expression
or the right to take part in cultural life without specific reference to arts or creative
activities. Relevant provisions include article 19 of the UDHR, article 10 of the European
Convention for the Safeguard of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, articles 9 and
17 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and article 32 of the Arab Charter
for Human Rights. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has stressed
that the right to take part in cultural life entails rights of participation in, access to, and
contribution to cultural life, and encompasses the right of everyone “to seek and develop
cultural knowledge and expressions and to share them with others, as well as to act
creatively and take part in creative activity.”4
11. Other important provisions linked to artistic freedoms relate to the right to freedom
of opinion, and freedom of thought, conscience and religion, since art is also a means of
expressing a belief and developing a world vision. For many people, the experience of the
aesthetic dimensions of life is intimately connected to the sacred or divine. The right to
artistic freedom also relates to (a) the right of peaceful assembly; (b) the right to freedom of
association, including the right of artists and creators to form and join trade unions; (c) the
2 See in particular International Cities of Refuge Network, http://www.icorn.org/; freeDimensional,
http://freedimensional.org/; and Mapping of temporary shelter initiatives for Human Rights Defenders
in danger in and outside the EU, Final Report, February 2012.
3 See in particular The Arts and Freedom of Expression Network, http://artsfex.org.
4 E/C.12/GC/21, para. 15 (a).
http://www.icorn.org/
http://freedimensional.org/
http://artsfex.org/
A/HRC/23/34
5
right to benefit from the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any
literary or artistic production of which a person is the author; and (d) the right to leisure.
12. Provisions are to be implemented without any discrimination of any kind, such as
race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin,
property, birth or other status, as stated in article 2 of ICESCR and ICCPR. Article 5 (e)
(vi) of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination, article 13 (c) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women, articles 43 and 45 of the Convention on the Protection of
the Rights of Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, and article 21 of the
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, stress that all persons, irrespective of
their specific situation or status have the right to freedom of artistic expression and
creativity.
13. Article 27 of ICCPR is crucial for guaranteeing the artistic freedoms of persons
belonging to ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities. Particular attention must also be paid
to article 31 of the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
14. Important positive obligations devolve on States. Under article 15 (2) of ICESCR
and article 14 of the San Salvador Protocol, States must adopt steps necessary for the
conservation, the development and the diffusion of culture, which includes arts. Article 30
of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities calls for measures providing
persons with disabilities the opportunity to develop and utilize their creative, artistic and
intellectual potential. Article 42 of the Arab Charter for Human Rights stresses that States
shall work together and enhance cooperation among them at all levels, with the full
participation of intellectuals and inventors and their organizations, in order to develop and
implement recreational, cultural and artistic programmes.
15. Few decisions in the United Nations system relate to artistic freedom. In its
Communication 926/2000 of 2004, concerning a painter, Hak-Chul Shin, who had been
convicted for a painting deemed to be an “enemy-benefiting expression” contrary to the
National Security Law, the Human Rights Committee found that the Republic of Korea had
violated article 19 of ICCPR. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, it its Opinion
32/2011, declared that Lapiro de Mbanga, a famous Cameroonian musician and composer,
had been arbitrarily detained for the legitimate exercise of his right to freedom of
expression.
16. Some court decisions have also been adopted at the regional level, particularly by
the European Court of Human Rights.5 At least on one occasion, the Inter-American Court
on Human Rights adopted a decision relating to artistic freedom.6
2. Relevant
UNESCO
instruments7
(a) Recommendation concerning the status of the artist
17. The underlying principle of the 1980 United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organizational (UNESCO) Recommendation Concerning the Status of the Artist is
that Governments should help to create and sustain a climate encouraging freedom of
artistic expression and the material conditions facilitating the release of creative talents. The
5 Council of Europe, “Cultural rights in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights”,
January 2011, http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/F8123ACC-5A5A-4802-86BE-
8CDA93FE58DF/0/RAPPORT_RECHERCHE_Droits_culturels_EN .
6 “Last temptation of Christ”, Chile, 5 February 2001.
7 See UNESCO’s input to the Consultation on the right to artistic freedom.
http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/F8123ACC-5A5A-4802-86BE-8CDA93FE58DF/0/RAPPORT_RECHERCHE_Droits_culturels_EN
http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/F8123ACC-5A5A-4802-86BE-8CDA93FE58DF/0/RAPPORT_RECHERCHE_Droits_culturels_EN
A/HRC/23/34
6
recommendation addresses issues such as freedom of expression, support to artistic
creation, artistic education and training, social and labour rights, and intellectual property
rights. It stresses that artists shall benefit from the rights and protection provided for in
international and national legislation relating to human rights, in particular in the area of
freedom of expression and communication (articles III-6 and V 2).
18. States have a duty to protect, defend and assist artists and their freedom of creation
(article III-3). They should ensure that artists have the freedom to establish and be a
member of trade unions and professional organizations, and should enable organizations
representing artists to participate in the formulation of cultural policies and employment
policies (article III-4). Artists should be able to participate fully, either individually or
through their associations or trade unions, in the life of the communities in which they
practise their art, and be associated in the formulation of local and national cultural policies
(article III- 7).
19. States should promote the free international movement of artists and not hinder their
freedom to practise their art in the country of their choice (articles IV-1 j and k; and VI-8).
20. Furthermore, States should stimulate public and private demand for the fruits of
artistic activity in order to increase the opportunities of paid work for artists, inter alia by
means of subsidies to art institutions, commissions to individual artists, or the organization
of artistic events, and by establishing art funds (article VI-1 c).
(b) The Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions
21. According to article 2 of the 2005 UNESCO Convention on the Protection and
Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, “Cultural diversity can be protected
and promoted only if human rights and fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of
expression, information and communication, as well as the ability of individuals to choose
cultural expressions, are guaranteed. No one may invoke the provisions of this Convention
in order to infringe human rights and fundamental freedoms as enshrined in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights or guaranteed by international law, or to limit the scope
thereof.”
22. Under article 7, States endeavour to create an environment which encourages
individuals and social groups to create, produce, disseminate, distribute and have access to
their own cultural expressions as well as to diverse cultural expressions from within their
territory as well as from other countries of the world. States shall also endeavour to
recognize the important contribution of artists as well as all those involved in the creative
process, and their central role in nurturing the diversity of cultural expressions.
23. The Convention – based on the principle that cultural goods and services, as vectors
of identity, values and meaning, must not be treated as mere commodities or consumer
goods – recognizes the right of States to develop cultural policies that do not necessarily
coincide with free market rules. It enhances their capacity to adopt measures necessary for
the conservation, the development and the diffusion of culture, as required by article 15 of
ICESCR.
3. Standards at the national level
24. As shown in responses to the questionnaire and other information, many
constitutions expressly protect the right to “artistic creation” or “artistic creativity”.. Others
protect the right to “artistic/creative expression”, “freedom of creation” or of “artistic
endeavour”, or of “cultural creativity”, or make reference to “freedom of the arts”. Some
A/HRC/23/34
7
constitutions protect the artistic freedom implicitly through the rights to freedom of
expression, to participate in cultural life, to access culture and to cultural development.8
B. Limitations to artistic freedoms
1. Standards on possible limitations
25. Article 4 of ICESCR authorizes “limitations as are determined by law only in so far
as this may be compatible with the nature of these rights and solely for the purpose of
promoting the general welfare in a democratic society.” Limitations must be necessary and
proportionate, and established by legal rules that are transparent and consistently applied in
a non-discriminatory way.9
26. Under article 19 of ICCPR, the right to freedom of expression, including in the form
of art, may be subject to certain restrictions that are provided by law and are necessary (a)
for the respect of the rights or reputations of others; or (b) for the protection of national
security or of public order, or of public health or morals. Responses to the questionnaire
demonstrate that some constitutions mirror article 19 of ICCPR, while others regrettably go
much further in the restrictions they allow.
27. Under article 20, any propaganda for war, as well as any advocacy of national, racial
or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, shall
be prohibited by law.
28. Over the last years, the meaning of articles 19 and 20 of ICCPR has been further
clarified, in particular through General Comment 34 (2011) of the Human Rights
Committee on article 19 of ICCPR, and the report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of
opinion and expression on the challenge to reconcile the need to protect and promote the
right to freedom of opinion and expression and to combat discrimination and incitement to
hatred (A/67/357).10 The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights conducted
activities focused on the relationship between freedom of expression and hate speech,
especially in relation to religious issues. The process culminated with the “Rabat Plan of
Action on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes
incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”.11
29. Under article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Racial Discrimination, States, with due regard to the principles embodied in the UDHR,
shall declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial
superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or
incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic
origin, and also the provision of any assistance to racist activities, including the financing
thereof.
30. These various texts set the parameters for defining possible limitations of artistic
freedoms.
31. The Special Rapporteur notes in particular the recommendation to clearly
distinguish among (a) expression that constitutes a criminal offence; (b) expression that is
8 All responses to the questionnaire are available on the website of the Special Rapporteur, at the
following address:
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/CulturalRights/Pages/SRCulturalRightsIndex.aspx.
9 E/C.12/GC/21, para. 19.
10 See also A/66/290.
11 A/HRC/22/17/Add.4.
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/CulturalRights/Pages/SRCulturalRightsIndex.aspx
A/HRC/23/34
8
not criminally punishable but may justify a civil suit or administrative sanctions; and (c)
expression that does not give rise to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions but still
raises a concern in terms of tolerance, civility and respect for the rights of others.12 In other
words, what may be morally objectionable (from one point of view) may not necessarily be
legally inadmissible or condemnable. Criminal sanctions should be the very last resort
measures only, to be applied in strictly justifiable situations. In this regard, the Special
Rapporteur is concerned that many artists have been disproportionately sentenced under the
criminal code, including under charges of offences such as “extremism”, “terrorism” or
“hooliganism”. A particularly useful suggestion in the Rabat Plan is to use a six-part
threshold test for those expressions that are criminally prohibited, implying an analysis of
the context, speaker, content or form (which implicitly also refers to “the form of art”),
extent of the speech, and likelihood, including imminence.
32. The Special Rapporteur considers that States have the challenge of ensuring the full
implementation of artistic freedoms and resort to limitations only when absolutely
necessary. States shall bear in mind that they shall not single out some individual
conceptions of the beautiful or sacred for official protection, as all persons are equal before
the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law
(article 26 of ICCPR). Moreover, “it is not compatible with the [ICCPR] for a restriction to
be enshrined in traditional, religious and other such customary law”.13
2. Application to artistic freedoms: specific challenges
33. States and other stakeholders often refer to the necessity of regulating the
dissemination of artistic expressions deemed to, for example, call for discrimination, hatred
and violence against specific groups or persons, amount to drug propaganda, or contain
pornographic content. The necessity to protect children and adolescents against specific
contents, such as extreme violence or pornography, the right to privacy and the moral and
material rights of authors, and the rights of indigenous peoples, has also been mentioned in
responses to the questionnaire. The attention of the Special Rapporteur was also drawn to
examples of songs having encouraged ethnic hatred and the broadcasts of these songs
having had an amplifying effect on genocide.14
34. These concerns need to be addressed in compliance with international standards
regarding possible limitations as described above. The Special Rapporteur encourages
States, when applying these standards, to take into consideration the specific nature of
artistic expressions and creations.
35. Artists, like journalists and human rights defenders, are at particular risk as their
work depends on visibly engaging people in the public domain. Through their expressions
and creations, artists often question our lives, perceptions of ourselves and others, world
visions, power relations, human nature and taboos, eliciting emotional as well as
intellectual responses.
36. Artistic expression and creativity may entail the re-appropriation of symbols,
whether national (flags, national anthems), religious (figures, symbols, venues) or
social/economical (a certain brand for example), as part of a response to the narratives
promoted by States, religious institutions or economic powers.15 States, religions, corporate
12 A/66/290, para 18.
13 CCPR/C/GC/34, paras. 24 and 32.
14 International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Case No. ICTR-01-72-T, Simon Bikindi, 2008, in
particular paras. 254-255, and 264.
15 Svetlana Mincheva, “Symbols into soldiers: Art, censorship and religion”, Background article for the
Oslo Conference, p. 2.
A/HRC/23/34
9
companies and social groups also use art to propagate their ideas and promote their
interests, including concepts of right and wrong to create homogeneity of belief and
behaviour. In most cases, restrictions on artistic freedoms reflect a desire to promote a
world vision or narrative “while simultaneously blocking all others”.
16
37. An artwork differs from non-fictional statements, as it provides a far wider scope for
assigning multiple meanings: assumptions about the message carried by an artwork are
therefore extremely difficult to prove, and interpretations given to an artwork do not
necessarily coincide with the author’s intended meaning. Artistic expressions and creations
do not always carry, and should not be reduced to carrying, a specific message or
information. In addition, the resort to fiction and the imaginary must be understood and
respected as a crucial element of the freedom indispensable for creative activities and
artistic expressions: representations of the real must not be confused with the real, which
means, for example, that what a character says in a novel cannot be equated with the
author’s personal views. Hence, artists should be able to explore the darker side of
humanity, and to represent crimes or what some may consider as “immorality”, without
being accused of promoting these.17
38. While policies designed to attract wider audiences to art should be encouraged, this
should not exclude controversial works because unprepared audiences may be put in
contact with them. Rather, it is imperative to enhance arts education, which can be seen as a
strong and efficient alternative to censorship.
39. The open access to, and circulation of, artworks through the Internet has increased
challenges, with instances of conflicts ignited over artistic expressions made locally, but
distributed globally. However, the issue of the Internet must not obfuscate the fact that a
great majority of violations of artistic freedoms concern artists working in their own
country and questioning their own cultural heritage, traditions and surroundings.
III. Restrictions and obstacles: the need for national assessments
40. The multifaceted character of restrictions and obstacles to artistic freedoms needs to
be acknowledged so as to provide a better understanding of the obligations of States to
respect, protect and fulfil these freedoms and develop good practices.
41. In a large number of cases, States resort to imposing restrictions authorized under
international law in inappropriate or abusive ways, favouring some worldviews over others.
Consequently, stakeholders lose confidence in State institutions, leading to a loss of
credibility of Governments, including when they legitimately impose limitations in
accordance with articles 19 (3) or 20 of ICCPR. This effect is amplified when rules are
ambiguous and procedures are not transparent.
A. Persons impacted
42. Obstacles to artistic freedoms impact on the enjoyment of rights by a wide range of
people: the artists themselves, whether professionals or amateurs, as well as all those
participating in the creation, production, distribution and dissemination of artwork. They
include authors, musicians and composers, dancers and other performers, including street
16 Marie Korpe, Ole Reitov and Martin Cloonan, “Music censorship from Plato to the Present”, in Music
and Manipulation, Bergahn Books, 2006.
17 Agnès Tricoire, Petit traité de la liberté artistique (La Découverte, Paris, 2011); Submission from
Denmark, p. 1.
A/HRC/23/34
10
performers, comedians and playwrights, visual artists, authors, editors, film producers,
publishers, distributors, directors and staff working in libraries, galleries, museums,
cinemas or theatres, curators and organisers of cultural events. Audiences may also be
affected. It is important to recognize the artistic freedoms of all persons when they
participate in cultural life or wish to engage in creative activities.
43. Restrictions on artistic freedoms may target some categories of the population more
specifically. Women artists and audiences are at particular risk in some communities, and
are prohibited from performing arts altogether, from solo performances before mixed
audiences, or from performing with men. In a number of countries, many women making a
living as artists, or wishing to engage in artistic careers, particularly in the area of cinema,
theatre, dance and music, continue to be labelled as “loose” or “prostitutes”. Ethnic and
religious minorities may also suffer from prohibitions such as using a language or artistic
style specific to a region or a people. People with disabilities may suffer particular
prejudice when wishing to perform or display their work.
B. Actors imposing restrictions or creating obstacles
44. A wide range of actors may create obstacles or impose restrictions to freedom of
artistic expression and creativity. These include States, but also non-State actors in their
own spheres of influence, such as mass media, broadcasting, telecommunications and
production companies, educational institutions, armed extremists as well as organized
crime, religious authorities, traditional leaders, corporations, distribution companies and
retailers, sponsors, as well as civil society groups such as parents’ associations.
C. Motivations
45. The Special Rapporteur recalls that the expression of political dissent and
participation in public debate, including in the form of art, is protected under article 19 of
ICCPR. Public figures, including those exercising the highest political authority, are
legitimately subject to criticism and political opposition. Therefore, laws on matters such as
lèse majesté,
desacato,
disrespect for authority, disrespect for flags and symbols, defamation
of the head of State and the protection of the honour of public officials, do raise concern.
States should not prohibit criticism of institutions such as the army or the administration.
18
46. The suppression of political dissent, the quest for nation-building and pursuit of
hegemonic policies have always been prominent reasons for art censorship. In some
countries, artistic expressions openly critical of a Government are still systematically
suppressed. Lyrics, visual and performance art criticizing public figures or institutions
(such as the police), or using national symbols (such as flags, the image of a monarch or
head of State and/or Government, or the national anthem), may be censored. In countries
engaged in armed conflicts, artistic expressions questioning the legitimacy or the conduct of
the war are frequently marginalized or suppressed. The accusation of “separatism” or
“terrorism” or being “unpatriotic” can be levelled at artworks criticizing the Government.
47. Restrictions on artistic freedoms based on religious arguments range from urging the
faithful not to partake in various forms of artistic expression to outright bans on music,
images and books.19 Artists have been accused of “blasphemy” or “religious defamation”,
18 CCPR/C/GC/34, para. 38.
19 “A very dark future for the local populations in Northern Mali,” warn United Nations experts, 7
October 2012.
A/HRC/23/34
11
insulting “religious feelings” or inciting “religious hatred”. Artistic activities or artworks
concerned include those quoting sacred texts, using religious symbols or figures,
questioning religion or the sacred, proposing an unorthodox or non-mainstream
interpretation of symbols and texts, adopting a conduct deemed not to follow religious
precepts, addressing abuse of power by religious leaders or their linkage with political
parties or criticizing religious extremism.
20
48. The Special Rapporteur recalls that “prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a
religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with [ICCPR],
except in the specific circumstances envisaged in article 20, paragraph 2, of the
Covenant.”21 Blasphemy laws have a stifling impact on the enjoyment of freedom of
religion or belief and impede a healthy dialogue and debate about religion.
22
49. In some cases, cultural institutions and artists have abstained from presenting
“controversial works” under high pressure from communities, including threats of violence
and violence itself, and “policy makers and arts administrators have come broadly to accept
the argument that it is morally unacceptable to cause offence to other cultures.”23 It must be
recalled that, within any collective identity, there will always be differences and debates
over meanings, definitions and concepts.24 To understand who speaks for which culture or
community, and ensure that predominance is not accorded to one voice over the other, most
often out of prejudice, are particular challenges. The fear that some communities may
protest should not be sufficient to lead to the conclusion that some artworks should not be
displayed or performed; a certain level of contest and dispute is often inherent to
contemporary art.
50. Issues relating to gender, sexuality and sexual orientation, in relation to religion and
morals, continue to be highly debated in connection with artistic expressions and creations.
Artworks that are concerned range from those addressing the issue of love and romance, or
representing or exposing nudity, to those resorting to pornography or certain forms of
pornography. References to, or descriptions of, homosexual relationships in literature,
music and visual arts are criminalized in several countries, or face particular censorship in
some others. The Special Rapporteur notes with concern that the motivation of protecting
children from certain content may be used to and lead to prohibited access for adults.25 She
further stresses that according to some information, “despite widely publicized claims that
adverse effects [of sexual or violent content on children] have been proven, the studies are
ambiguous, disparate and modest in their results”.26 Arts education, together with education
that teaches children how to interpret and critique media and entertainment messages, may
be a far better and more effective solution than censorship.
51. The protection of corporate interests may also play an important role in art
restrictions. Underlying motivations include the desire to silence criticism from artists of
20 For example, TUN 2/2012 in A/HRC/22/67; RUS 2/2012 in A/HRC/21/49.
21 CCPR/C/GC/34, para. 49.
22 Rabat document, para. 19.
23 Kenan Malik, “Arts for who’s sake”, in Index on Censorship, Beyond belief, theatre, freedom of
expression and public order – a case study, p. 3-6.
24 A/67/287, para. 10.
25 Svetlana Mintcheva, “Protection of politics? The use and abuse of children”, in Censoring culture,
Contemporary threats to free expression, The New Press, 2006, p. 167-172; Agnès Tricoire, op. cit.,
p. 53; Submission from Japan Actors Union and Japan Arts Council.
26 Marjorie Heins, “Media effects”, in Censoring Culture, p. 179.
A/HRC/23/34
12
corporate activities, or to protect a specific logo or brand.27 Sponsors have also played a
direct role in having artwork considered too controversial or not fitting their own interests
to be removed from artistic competitions, television shows or magazines.
52. The aesthetic censorship of art,28 when artists are not free to choose their preferred
style or to borrow from others, is a field which is often overlooked. Specific styles of music
or visual arts are deemed to be political, and/or considered to carry a foreign ideology. The
claim that such styles are devoid of any artistic merit has led, for example, to the banning
of, or restrictions on, abstract or conceptual art. Artistic expressions specifically concerned
can include musical systems or styles such as heavy metal music (described as “satanic”) or
Reggae Ton and Dance Hall (criticized as demeaning of women).
D. Specific measures and practices impacting on the right to freedom of
artistic expression
53. Restrictions can be imposed at various stages of the artistic creation, from the
development of the idea through to production, performance, publication and distribution.
Restrictions on artistic freedoms can result from oppressive laws and regulations, but can
also be the outcome of a fear of physical or economic coercion.
54. The Special Rapporteur is deeply concerned that artists in many parts of the world
feel threatened or have been attacked by aggressive audiences. Violence includes
assassinations, death threats, beating, burning of theatres and cinemas, blowing up of
DVD/CD stores, and destruction of artworks or musical instruments. Artists have been
accused of, and prosecuted for, incitement to violence when, in fact, aggressive individuals,
groups or crowds, sometimes with the duplicity of local or foreign State authorities, were
responsible for the incitement. Reactions to controversial artwork can be expressed through
the exercise of the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, but must never
take the form of violence. The Special Rapporteur also regrets that in some cases, the police
charged artists and cultural institutions to provide protection.
1. Laws and regulations
(a) Unclear regulations
55. Restrictions on artistic freedom are often implemented through unclear regulations
or directives without legal basis. In too many cases, regulations are implemented without
consistency by non-transparent mechanisms with no possibility of appeal. In the area of
cinema or public art in particular, artists may be required to obtain additional permits from
State and non-State, as well as official and non-official authorities, “giving influential
parties and individuals the power to interfere and restrict freedom of expression”.29
Difficulties multiply when overlapping laws and regulations are used to prevent public
access to artworks.
56. The Special Rapporteur recalls that laws imposing restrictions “must be formulated
with sufficient precision to enable an individual to regulate his/her conduct accordingly and
27 Nadia Plesner vs. Louis Vuitton, Case number 389526/KG ZA 11-284, Court of The Hague, 4 May
2011, http://www.nadiaplesner.com/simple-living–darfurnica1; and Mattel v. MCA Records, 296 F.3d
894, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2002.
28 Si Han, “The invisible red line – manoeuvring Chinese art censorship”, Background article related to
the Oslo Conference, p. 4.
29 Censorship in Lebanon: law and practice .A Collaborative Study by Nizar Saghieh,Rana Saghieh and
Nayla Geagea,
http://www.nadiaplesner.com/simple-living–darfurnica1
A/HRC/23/34
13
it must be made accessible to the public. A law may not confer unfettered discretion for the
restriction of freedom of expression on those charged with its execution. Laws must
provide sufficient guidance to those charged with their execution to enable them to
ascertain what sorts of expression are properly restricted and what sorts are not.”30
(b) Prior censorship
57. An important issue relates to the question of whether prior censorship, occurring
before the production or publication of an artwork, such as movies and theatre plays or
public art, for the purpose of “proscribing content, prohibiting its public presentation,
and/or preventing its creators from working towards its realisation”,31 is in accordance with
international human rights standards. As a matter of principle, a negative answer must be
given, in line with the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion
and expression, who considers that prior-censorship bodies “should not exist in any
country”,32 and the view of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which
considers that States must “abolish censorship of cultural activities in the arts and other
forms of expression”.33
58. Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights clearly states that freedom
of expression shall not be subject to prior censorship but only to subsequent imposition of
liability. In its judgement regarding the controversial movie The Last Temptation of Christ,
the Inter-American Court found a violation of article 13 for this reason. Article 13 further
states that public entertainment may be subject by law to prior censorship for the sole
purpose of regulating access to them for the moral protection of childhood and adolescence.
Thus, under this provision, censorship is understood as “regulating access” by children and
adolescents only, and exclusively in the area of public entertainment. Regulations take
various forms, and it is important that States always choose the least restrictive measure
possible.
59. Responses to the questionnaire indicate that a number of States have prohibited
censorship or prior censorship in their constitutions, albeit sometimes with limited
exceptions. Many countries do not have censorship bodies mandated to decide on possible
restrictions on artworks. However, this does not mean that censorship is not imposed by
executive authorities.34 Moreover, in practice, bodies not entrusted with the responsibility
of censoring artworks sometimes function as censorship commissions, with no information
on their membership, rules of procedure and activities, and no appeal mechanisms.35
60. Some States have established bodies authorized to issue distribution restrictions for
the protection of children, in particular in the area of press, movies and entertainment
software, while others have bodies mandated to overview electronic and print media, radio
and television broadcasting, which also can have an impact on artistic freedoms.
61. In the view of the Special Rapporteur, prior censorship should be an exceptional
measure, taken only to prevent the imminent threat of grave irreparable harm to human life
or property. A system whereby content automatically requires official clearance before it
can be released would be unacceptable, as its harm to freedom of artistic expression and
30 CCPR/C/GC/34,, para. 25.
31 2010 Arts Community Position Paper on Censorship and Regulation, Singapore, p. 3.
32 A/HRC/20/17, para, 25.
33 E/C.12/GC/21, para. 49 c).
34 Submissions from Lebanon, Organización de Sindicatos de Artistas del Estato Espanol (OSAAEE),
Prof. Shugurov.
35 Submission from the Collectif Alger-Culture.
A/HRC/23/34
14
creativity would by far outweigh the benefit of its goals.36 In countries where prior-
censorship bodies exist, the immediate abolition of these bodies should be envisaged, as
regulating access for children and youth can best be implemented through rating and
classification procedures.
(c) Classification and rating
62. For some specific areas of artistic creativity, to the use of regulation, understood as
“the disinterested classification of content according to publicly available guidelines”,37
seems a better option. For example, one collective of artists has advocated for regulation
instead of censorship in their country, and suggested the implementation of “a regulatory
system that is user-friendly, transparent and accountable.”38 Regulation as classification
includes greater freedom of expression, as works fitting in the highest rated category shall
remain uncut except materials that are prohibited by a court of law in accordance with the
law; accordingly, with such very limited exceptions, adults shall be able to have access to
all artworks. Regulation as classification would also enable the public to make an informed
decision about what they want to experience, or allow their children to experience; and
setting clearer rules for all stakeholders.39
63. Classification bodies have been established in many countries to protect children
from contents that are easily accessible by them, in particular movies, music and video
games. These include private voluntary rating associations or self-regulatory bodies. In
some States, it is clearly indicated that classification bodies may not order the deletion of
specific scenes in movies, or that “adults should be able to read, hear and see what they
want”. Some States have, however, retained a level of classification which leads to
prohibition of content.
64. Such regulations constitute limitations and may be acceptable only to the extent that
they fully comply with international standards. Classification and rating may be used as
tools of oppression and should be used with care and transparency.
(d) Regulation over the use of public space
65. To what extent may those engaged in artistic activity use public spaces to share their
works? This concerns various kinds of artistic expressions and creations, from street theatre
performances to graffiti, reciting poems or shooting films in open spaces, street dancing, to
displaying commissioned visual art in city plazas and streets. A related question is the
extent to which people may engage in “public art”, in reference to “artistic practices, which
use locations outside of traditional art spaces for the production, exhibition, and mediation
of art. (…) Often, pieces in public space critically deal with social and political issues,
which aim at stimulating discussions, propelling social interaction, inviting locals for
participation in the conception and execution of the work, and finding alternative audiences
with a broader range of spectators.”40 The use of public space for art is crucial as it allows
people, including marginalized people, to freely access, enjoy and sometimes contribute to
the arts, including in its most contemporary forms. In some cases, artistic expressions and
36 See also Article 19, Censorship, Violence and Press Freedom,
http://www.article19.org/pages/en/censorship-violence-press-freedom-more.html.
37 2010 Arts Community Position Paper on Censorship and Regulation, Singapore, p. 3.
38 Ibid.
39 Ibid., p. 6-7.
40 Markus Graf, “Radius of art: Thematic Window – Public Art”, Heinrich Böll Foundation, 22 March
2012.
http://www.article19.org/pages/en/censorship-violence-press-freedom-more.html
A/HRC/23/34
15
creations are used in public spaces as a peaceful way of manifesting dissent or alternative
viewpoints.
66. Several questions ensue: What is “public space” and to whom does it belong? Who
should decide what is allowed, when, where and for how long? To what degree should the
public have a say, in particular locals who may be subjected to sounds and images that they
dislike in their daily environment? Why should artistic expression be given less space than,
for example, advertising?
67. In this area, States’ practices vary significantly. Responses to the questionnaire
indicate that regulations relating to public assemblies, level of noise, the respect due to
historic buildings or private property, are applicable to artists as to other persons, and are
frequently managed by local authorities, or the police. Consequently, situations may vary
considerably within a country. Prior authorization is generally required. The response to
non-authorized street visual and performing art can be ignored by the authorities, dealt with
leniency or may be systematically prosecuted for administrative or criminal offences. Some
cities have initiated innovative procedures, such as “space reservation” on particular days of
the month.41
68. People engaged in creative activities encounter manifold difficulties, including (a)
the bureaucracy’s reluctance and tardiness in granting free use of public spaces; (b)
arbitrariness in the granting of permits and requirements to obtain multiple authorizations
from various authorities; (c) censorship over content before authorization is granted; (d)
inadequate or abusive licensing systems for street performers and live entertainment;42 and
(e) increasing encroachment of public space by private properties.
(e) Restrictions on mobility
69. Travel restrictions include the retention of artists’ passports to impede their
travelling abroad, as well as restrictions on the issuance of visas and work permits, which
affect artists’ options to perform and audiences’ possibilities to access artistic expressions
and creations. Many tour, concert and festival organizers, agents, management companies,
cultural organizations and others, when organizing concerts and tours of foreign artists, face
non-transparent, time-consuming and costly application procedures to obtain a visa. Some
festivals have stopped inviting artists from particular countries owing to the unpredictable
nature of their visa application procedures.43
2. Economic and financial issues
70. Responses to the questionnaire indicate that many States have adopted various ways
of supporting the arts, including financial support to cultural institutions or artistic projects,
bursaries, prizes and support for training and international exchange. However, many
stakeholders stress that the main impediments artists encounter in their work relate to their
precarious economic and social situation. The current financial crisis has led to severe cuts
in public spending, resulting in great unemployment amongst artists, the closure of art
institutions, and a shift towards private sponsorship. In their responses to the questionnaire,
some stakeholders stressed the absence of or a reduced market in their country. One
41 Submission from the Austrian Ombudsman Board.
42 Submissions from Japan Actors Union and Japan Arts Council; Equity; Collectif Alger-Culture.
43 Richard Polacek, Mobile.home, Study on impediments to mobility in the EU live performance sector
and on possible solutions, 2007; Ole Reitov and Hans Hjorth, Visas, the discordant note, a white
paper on visa issues, Europe and artists’ mobility, 2008,; Artists’ mobility and visas: A step forward,
On The Move, December 2012.
A/HRC/23/34
16
challenge for artists is to enjoy freedom including from their sponsors, whether State or
private.
(a) Restricted access to State support and cuts in financial support
71. State cultural policies need to take artistic freedoms into consideration, in particular
when establishing criteria for selecting artists or institutions for State support, the bodies in
charge of allocating grants, as well as their terms of reference and rules of procedure. The
system in place can help to avoid undue government influence on the arts.
72. Reconciling public intervention and freedom is not an easy task. The pivotal factor
is ensuring that the system as a whole is neutral. In this regard, policies developed on the
basis of a “principle of pluralism” may be worth exploring as a good practice.44 The “arm’s
length principle”, whereby independent experts, in particular peers, are mandated for a
limited time period to allocate funds and grants, also seems a good guarantee against undue
political influence. Another way of supporting the arts without interference with regard to
content is through improving the social status of artists, in particular their social security,
which seems a widely shared concern amongst them.
73. Criticism over publicly funded artworks made by Government, Parliament, or any
group, remains part of the debate. However, financial cuts and harsh criticism against
cultural institutions or specific artworks may also be a cover for censorship.45 As one
observer stresses, “When state authorities threaten to withdraw financial support from
certain cultural institutions while giving preference to others whose political views are
closer to their own, they are engaging in a violation of freedom of speech.”46
(b) “Market censorship”
74. Private art institutions may enable critical, unconventional, controversial and “avant-
garde” art works to be displayed or performed. However, the adverse consequences on
artistic freedoms of the increasing weight of corporate sponsorship need to be assessed.
Cultural producers and artists refer to the existence of a “censorship by the market”, arising
in particular when cultural industries are basically market-oriented, public funding is under
pressure and alternative distribution is minimal.
75. The following are of particular concern: (a) corporation consolidation within all
branches of cultural production, which frequently results in de facto monopolistic control;
and (b) the incorporation of media, arts and entertainment holdings into corporate empires,
and their impact on artistic freedoms and on people’s access to the arts.47 Whole chains of
production of artworks, in particular in the area of music and movies, are controlled from
creation to distribution by particular corporations. Companies may have control over
bookstores, concert halls and cinemas. This may lead to situations where, for example,
music bands’ protests against war plans resulted in their songs being removed from
hundreds of radio stations controlled by a media conglomerate, very large consumer
retailers censoring any CD labelled “Parental Advisory”, and musicians and record
companies agreeing to create a “sanitized” version of lyrics for particular megastores. The
recent refusal by a major private digital distributor to publish an e-book containing several
photographs of nude hippies is another example.48 The drastic reduction in the number of
independent book and music stores in comparison to chain and megastores, which “have
44 Céline Romainville, p. 10; submission from Romania.
45 Submission from the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists (ACTRA) .
46 Association for Civil Rights in Israel, Project Democracy: Fighting for the Ground Rules, p. 15.
47 Robert Atkins, Svetlana Mintcheva, Censoring culture, op. cit., p. xix.
48 Submissions from Denmark and the Council of Danish Artists.
A/HRC/23/34
17
vast advertising budgets at their disposal, enormous sales forces, and an extremely efficient
network of press contacts”, is worrisome. Financial and marketing strategies often drive the
decision to publish a specific book or not.49
76. A current tendency is for States to co-fund with corporate sponsors. While some
artists and arts organizations call for legislation enabling private (and corporate)
sponsorship of the arts, others fear a reduced scope for contemporary, experimental and
provocative artistic expressions. States should ensure that, in the process, the arts and artists
do not become mere advertisers of corporate interests.50
77. Artists’ autonomy can only be guaranteed through diversity of funding and a good
balance between public and private sponsorship, both of which may open space for artistic
creation. States should not monopolize funding of the arts but cannot leave sponsorship
entirely to corporations. Corporations tend to show little interest in funding alternative
cultural spaces or institutions and prioritize funding high-profile programmes such as
blockbuster exhibitions.51
78. These issues are complex and need to be urgently addressed. While it is important to
ensure producers and distributors are free to select what to support or promote, strategies
are needed to ensure that artists not fitting market strategies may still make their voices
heard. This underscores the importance of the 2005 UNESCO Convention, which affirmed
the right of Parties to introduce cultural policies and measures to support the creation,
production and distribution of local cultural goods and services. Some stress, however, that
support provided to local productions sometimes does not enable a clear added value, and
that what is actually subsidized does not really differ from what the private market may
offer.
(c) The protection of the moral and material interests of artists and authors
79. One way of silencing artists is to impede their livelihood options as professionals in
a career devoted to artistic creations. According to article 27 of the UDHR and 15 of
ICESCR, all individuals have the right to benefit from the protection of the moral and
material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which s/he
is the author. As stressed by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in its
General Comment 17, the protection of these interests is not to be equated with legal
entitlements recognized in intellectual property systems.
80. While the Special Rapporteur understands the concern that piracy and file sharing
may threaten the potential of artists to earn their living, she also stresses the need to
acknowledge the percentage of royalties that go to publishing houses/copyright holders
rather than to the artists themselves. Concern has been expressed about coercive contracts
that authors and artists identify as a primary obstacle to fair remuneration. Under such
contracts, which are frequent, creators sign away all their rights to their creation in order to
gain a commission for creating a work. Consequently, they lose control over their creation,
which can be used in contradiction to their own vision.
49 Robert Atkins, “Money talks…”, pp. 3–9; and André Schiffrin, “Market censorship”, pp. 67–79, in
Censoring Culture, op. cit. On these issues, see also submission from Argentina.
50 On these issues, see submissions from Denmark, Monaco, Austrian Ombudsman Board, Jordi Baltà
Prof. Shugurov, OSAAEE.
51 Hans Haacke, “Revisiting Free Exchange: The art world after the culture wars”, pp. 51-57, and
Robert Atkins, “Money talks: The economic foundations of censorship”, pp. 3-9, in Censoring
culture, op. cit. See also submission from Equity.
A/HRC/23/34
18
81. In a number of countries, non-profit collective societies, with a majority of board
members being artists, have been established to collect the income from artistic
creations/performances. This system, under which collective societies do not own the
artists’ rights, and in which the artist has the freedom to participate or not, should be
promoted and protected.
82. A highly debated issue is whether the moral rights and copyright systems have
evolved in such a manner that the balance between the rights of authors and artists on the
one hand, and the need to promote creativity and access to culture on the other, is no longer
achieved. Some observers stress that spaces within those systems that allow “certain free
uses of work”, 52 are shrinking.53 Others consider that strengthening moral rights would help
to promote such free uses of work. This debate is particularly vivid in the world of hip-
hop/rap culture, where sampling is an art in itself,54 but also concerns other areas of
contemporary art.55 The challenge is to find flexible solutions, which neither infringe on
artists’ moral right nor the fair interests of remuneration for publishers but, at the same
time, respect the right of artists to “quote” or refer to other artists’ productions.
83. Another concern relates to the pressure exerted by entertainment and media
companies to impose their ownership on material that is part of shared cultural heritage,
though demanding the extension of the duration of the period of copyright, which they have
obtained in some countries. The Bern Convention states that all works except photographic
and cinematographic shall be copyright for at least 50 years after the author’s death, but
authorizes longer terms. The limitation of material in the public domain and the narrowing
of possibilities of free use may fly “directly in the face of contemporary art practices”.56
84. One additional concern is that on all these issues, artists are reluctant to enter into
lengthy and costly judicial proceedings against corporations, which in turn can be a
deterrent to artistic creativity.
IV. Conclusion and recommendations
85. All persons enjoy the right to freedom of artistic expression and creativity,
which includes the right to freely experience and contribute to artistic expressions and
creations, through individual or joint practice, to have access to and enjoy the arts,
and to disseminate their expressions and creations.57
86. The effects of art censorship or unjustified restrictions of the right to freedom
of artistic expression and creativity are devastating. They generate important cultural,
social and economic losses, deprive artists of their means of expression and livelihood,
create an unsafe environment for all those engaged in the arts and their audiences,
sterilize debates on human, social and political issues, hamper the functioning of
democracy and most often also impede debates on the legitimacy of censorship itself.
87. In many cases, censorship is counterproductive in that it gives wider publicity
to controversial artworks. However, the fear censorship generates in artists and art
institutions often leads to self-censorship, which stifles art expression and
52 Bern Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, article 10.
53 See Céline Romainville.
54 Siva Vaidhyanathan, American music challenges the copyright tradition, in Censoring culture, op.
cit., p. 45.
55 See Céline Romainville, p. 19.
56 Robert Atkins, Svetlana Mintcheva, Censoring culture, op. cit., p. 7.
57 See submission from the Observatoire de la diversité et des droits culturels.
A/HRC/23/34
19
impoverishes the public sphere.58 Artistic creativity demands an environment free
from fear and insecurity.
88. The Special Rapporteur calls upon States to review critically their legislation
and practices imposing restrictions on the right to freedom of artistic expression and
creativity, taking into consideration relevant international human rights law
provisions and in cooperation with representatives of independent associations of
artists and human rights organizations. The full array of States obligations to respect,
protect and fulfil the right of every person to freedom of artistic expression and
creativity should be considered for this exercise.
89. The Special Rapporteur recommends that:
(a) Artists and all those engaged in artistic activities should only be subject
to general laws that apply to all people. Such laws shall be formulated with sufficient
precision and in accordance with international human rights standards. They shall be
made easily accessible to the public, and implemented with transparency, consistency
and in a non-discriminatory manner. Decisions on restrictions should clearly indicate
motives and be subject to appeal before a court of law;
(b) States should abolish prior-censorship bodies or systems where they exist
and use subsequent imposition of liability only when necessary under article 19 (3)
and 20 of ICCPR. Such liability should be imposed exclusively by a court of law. Prior
censorship should be a highly exceptional measure, undertaken only to prevent the
imminent threat of grave irreparable harm to human life or property. Avenues for the
appeal before an independent entity of any decision to exercise prior restraint should
be guaranteed;
(c) Classification bodies or procedures may be resorted to for the sole
purpose of informing parents and regulating unsupervised access by children to
particular content, and only in the areas of artistic creation where this is strictly
necessary due in particular to easy access by children. States shall ensure that (a)
classification bodies are independent; (b) their membership includes representatives
of the arts field; (c) their terms of reference, rules of procedure and activities are
made public; and (d) effective appeal mechanisms are established. Particular
attention should be paid to ensuring that the regulation of access by children does not
result in prohibiting or disproportionately restricting access for adults;
(d) Decision makers, including judges, when resorting to possible limitations
to artistic freedoms, should take into consideration the nature of artistic creativity (as
opposed to its value or merit), as well as the right of artists to dissent, to use political,
religious and economic symbols as a counter-discourse to dominant powers, and to
express their own belief and world vision. The use of the imaginary and fiction must
be understood and respected as a crucial element of the freedom indispensable for
creative activities;
(e) States should abide by their obligation to protect artists and all persons
participating in artistic activities or dissemination of artistic expressions and creations
from violence by third parties. States should de-escalate tensions when these arise,
maintain the rule of law and protect artistic freedoms. The police should not charge
artists and cultural institutions for the costs of their protection;
(f) States should address issues regarding the use of public space for artistic
performances or displays. Regulation of public art may be acceptable where it
58 Svetlana Mintcheva, “Symbols into soldiers…”, p. 2.
A/HRC/23/34
20
conflicts with other public uses of the space, but such regulation should not
discriminate arbitrarily against specific artists or content. Cultural events deserve the
same level of protection as political protests. States, private institutions and donors
are encouraged to find creative solutions so as to enable artists to display or perform
in public space, through, for example, offering open spaces to artists. Where relevant,
in particular for permanent visual artworks, States should facilitate dialogue and
understanding with the local communities;
(g) States should review their visa issuance system and adjust it to the
specific difficulties encountered by touring artists, their host organizations and tour
organizers;
(h) States should ensure the participation of representatives of independent
associations of artists in decision-making related to art, and refrain from nominating
or appointing cultural administrators or directors of cultural institutions on the basis
of their political, religious or corporate affiliation.
90. The Special Rapporteur recommends that States and other stakeholders assess
and address more comprehensively restrictions to artistic freedoms imposed by
corporations, as well as the impact on artistic freedoms of aggressive market strategies
and situations of monopolies or quasi-monopolies in the area of media and culture.
The support provided to cultural industries should be revisited from the perspective
of the right to artistic freedom. The Special Rapporteur recommends in particular
that States:
(a) Enact and/or implement anti-trust legislation and legislation against
monopolies in the area of media and culture;
(b) Support securing the survival of independent bookstores, music stores
and cinemas threatened by megastores, multiplexes and global distributors;
(c) Ensure that measures established to support private sponsorship of the
arts do not negatively impact on artistic freedoms;
(d) Establish a clear national legal framework prohibiting coercive contracts
under which creators sign away their rights to their creation;
(e) Support the establishment of non-profit collective societies mandated to
collect and distribute income from artistic creations and performances, with a
majority of artists sitting on their board;
(f) Encourage initiatives to support free legal representation for artists or
other forms of legal aid;
(g) Assess and address comprehensively the impact of current intellectual
property rights regimes, especially of copyrights and authors’ rights, on artistic
freedoms;
(h) Fully support artistic creativity and the establishment of cultural
institutions accessible to all. Public agencies should function as a financial backup for
programmes that do not attract corporate sponsors, based on the understanding that
they cannot interfere with contents. Various systems of State support can be
envisaged, including delegating decisions on funding to independent peer-review
bodies, which should act in conformity with transparent terms of reference and rules
of procedure. These bodies’ decisions should be motivated and subject to appeal;
(i) Fully implement the UNESCO Recommendation Concerning the Status
of the Artist;
A/HRC/23/34
21
(j) Develop and enhance arts education in schools and communities,
instilling respect for, appreciation and understanding of artistic creativity, including
evolving concepts of acceptability, awakening the ability to be artistically creative.
Arts education should give students a historical perspective of the constant evolution
of mentalities on what is acceptable and what is controversial.
91. The Special Rapporteur recommends that national human rights institutions
and non-governmental organizations:
(a) Document more systematically violations of the right to freedom of
artistic expression and creativity;
(b) Submit their findings to relevant national and international bodies, in
particular the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Human
Rights Committee;
(c) Support artists who are threatened through in particular legal support.
A/HRC/23/34
22
Annex I
[English/French/Spanish only]
Responses to the questionnaire on the right to artistic
freedom
Member States of the United Nations
Argentina Lebanon
Azerbaijan Mauritania
Bulgaria Monaco
Cambodia Mongolia
Colombia Montenegro
Cuba Norway
Czech Republic Romania
Denmark Seychelles
Estonia Serbia
Fiji Slovenia
Georgia Spain
Germany Syria
Ireland Ukraine
Japan United States of America
National human rights institutions
Austrian Ombudsman Board
CNDP Rwanda
Defensoria del Pueblo de la Republicana Bolivariana de Venezuela
Other stakeholders
Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists (ACTRA)
Amis des étrangers au Togo
Arts Council of Northern Ireland (United Kingdom)
Canada Council for the Arts
Céline Romainville, Universités de Louvain et de Saint Louis, Belgique
Coalition béninoise pour la diversité culturelle
Collectif Alger-Culture
Council of Danish Artists
Czech Actors Association
A/HRC/23/34
23
Equity, United Kingdom
Japan Actors Union and Japan Arts Council
Jordi Baltà, Fundación Interarts, Spain
Mark Vladimirovich Shugurov, Russian Federation
Meta Atauea, Cultural producer, Kiribati
National Association for the Visual Arts, Australia
Observatoire de la diversité et des droits culturels, Switzerland
Organización de Sindicatos de Artistas del Estato Espanol (OSAAEE)
Portuguese Coalition for Cultural Diversity
Romania Independent Society of Human Rights
Syndicat français des artistes interprètes
Other contributions
UNESCO
A/HRC/23/34
24
Annex II
[English only]
Experts’ meeting on the right to freedom of artistic
expression (Geneva, 4–5 December 2012)
List of experts
Bruguera, Tania Installation and performance artist (Cuba)
Cuny, Laurence Human rights lawyer and Coordinator of a residency
programme for artists at risk (France)
Dacey, Austin Lecturer, Department of Philosophy, University of Central
Florida and adviser, Freemuse (United States of America)
Hazan, Pierre Lecturer, University of Geneva; Director of a programme on
the issue of memorialisation, Geneva University of Art and
Design (Switzerland)
Karabuda, Alfons Composer and chairman of the European Composer and
Songwriter Alliance (Sweden)
Knüsel, Pius Former Director of Pro-Helvetia Swiss Arts Council
(Switzerland)
Iglesias, Marisol Program Officer, Department of External Relations, WIPO
Malik, Kenan Senior Visiting Fellow in the Department of Political,
International and Policy Studies at the University of Surrey
and Trustee of Index on Censorship (United Kingdom)
Mboya, Joy Director of the Performing and Visual Arts Centre Ltd. and
member of the Arterial Network Steering Committee (Kenya)
Merkel, Christine M. Head of the Division of Culture, Memory of the World of the
German Commission for UNESCO; Executive Coordinator
of the German Federal Coalition for Cultural Diversity
(Germany)
Mintcheva, Svetlana Director of the Programmes at the National Coalition Against
Censorship and founder of NCAC Arts Advocacy Project
(United States of America)
Nadeem, Shahid Playwright and media professional (Pakistan)
Obuljen, Nina Researcher in cultural policies (Croatia)
Reitov, Ole Programme Manager and one of the founders of Freemuse –
the World Forum on Music and Censorship (Denmark)
Saghieh, Nizar Lawyer (Lebanon)
Sansour, Larissa Multimedia artist (Palestine)
A/HRC/23/34
25
Spencer-Shrestha,
Oliver
Head of advocacy on freedom of artistic expression,
Article 19 (United Kingdom)
Vézina, Brigitte Legal Officer, Traditional Knowledge Division, WIPO
Essay Writing Service Features
Our Experience
No matter how complex your assignment is, we can find the right professional for your specific task. Achiever Papers is an essay writing company that hires only the smartest minds to help you with your projects. Our expertise allows us to provide students with high-quality academic writing, editing & proofreading services.
Free Features
Free revision policy
$10Free bibliography & reference
$8Free title page
$8Free formatting
$8How Our Dissertation Writing Service Works
First, you will need to complete an order form. It's not difficult but, if anything is unclear, you may always chat with us so that we can guide you through it. On the order form, you will need to include some basic information concerning your order: subject, topic, number of pages, etc. We also encourage our clients to upload any relevant information or sources that will help.
Complete the order form
Once we have all the information and instructions that we need, we select the most suitable writer for your assignment. While everything seems to be clear, the writer, who has complete knowledge of the subject, may need clarification from you. It is at that point that you would receive a call or email from us.
Writer’s assignment
As soon as the writer has finished, it will be delivered both to the website and to your email address so that you will not miss it. If your deadline is close at hand, we will place a call to you to make sure that you receive the paper on time.
Completing the order and download