Art Law Library: Nudity

Home.png ListofTopics.png ListofCases.png Glossary.png
 
The nude has historically been one of the central subjects of art, but it remains a subject of controversy and censorship in the United States. The beauty of the human body has inspired painters, photographers, sculptors and choreographers for many centuries. For hundreds of years there have been sculptures of nudes in many public spaces from Washington, D.C. to the capitals of Europe. Nevertheless, exhibition spaces frequently decide to censor artwork containing nudity so as to “protect children” from what some might think is “indecent,” or simply to avoid controversy. 

The U.S. Supreme Court has stated multiple times that simple nudity (i.e., representations of the nude body in a non-sexualized manner) is constitutionally protected expression. (see cases below, as well as Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (1990), No. 88-5986., Schad v. Mount Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61, 66 (1981) (quoting Jenkins v. Georgia, 418 U.S. 153, 161 (1974)); see also FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 224 (1990) (plurality opinion); id., at 238, n. 1 (BRENNAN, J., concurring in judgment); Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U.S. 922, 932-933 (1975); Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 557-558 (1975); California v. LaRue, 409 U.S. 109, 118 (1972).)

Associated Cases:

Bellospirito v. Manhasset Public Library
Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville
Hopper and Rupp v. City of Pasco
State v. Bohannon
Tunick v. Safir
LSO v. Stroh


These materials are not intended, and should not be used, as legal advice. They necessarily contain generalizations that are not applicable in all jurisdictions or circumstances. Moreover, court decisions may be superceded by subsequent rulings, and may be subject to alternative interpretations. Corrections, clarification, and additions are welcome. Please send toncac@ncac.org.