"There have been surprisingly few Supreme Court cases involving art . . . and even fewer that are illuminating"

Randall Bezanson on Art and the Constitution, forthcoming in the Iowa Law Review.

He crafts an argument for First Amendment protection of art . . . but it's not clear to me who he's arguing against. He mentions a 1948 book by Alexander Meiklejohn, and says "the text of the First Amendment says speech, not art." But is there anybody who seriously maintains today that art is not a form of protected speech?

Thanks to Stephen Urice for the pointer.