Answer:
The correct answer here would be B: The museum argues that the language is not obscene because it has artistic merit.
Explanation:
The First Amendment of the U.S Constitution deals with all the rights that a citizen has regarding freedom of religion, right to petition and freedom of speech and of press. In this last case, Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Press, the First Amendment basically establishes that the government, including Congress, cannot at any time interfere with a person´s right to express his, or her, opinion, on a matter, whether this opinion takes a verbal, or pictural, form. The only way in which these freedoms may be controlled, says the First Amendment, is if the language used instigates violence, or damages the peace. Obscenity is another instance in which the Amendment does not protect freedom of speech. However, in order for a court to establish that there is obscenity, a series of tests must be performed. In this case, language from an artist is being used as a form of expression, and taken out of its context, it was interpreted by the people as obscene. However, unless such obscenity is proven, within the context in which the artist used it, then the judge who received the case cannot rule that the people´s suit was right. This means that the ad is protected by the First Amendment. This is why the answer here is B.
