‘NEA Four’ Ask Judge to Rule on Arts Language : Lawsuit: Four performance artists say the agency’s ‘decency’ restriction is unconstitutionally vague and violates free-speech protections.

Attorneys representing four performance artists today will ask a Los Angeles federal judge to strike down statutory language restricting grants from the National Endowment for the Arts to applicants who meet “general standards of decency.”

The challenge is part of a lawsuit originally filed in September, 1990, by four artists whose NEA grants were denied amid a storm of controversy engulfing the federal arts agency. The National Assn. of Artist Organizations later joined the so-called NEA Four--Karen Finley, John Fleck, Holly Hughes and Tim Miller--in the suit.

In response to an uproar in 1989 over NEA funding of a photography exhibit by the late Robert Mapplethorpe and a work called “Piss Christ” by Andres Serrano, Congress initially banned the agency from funding projects considered obscene, sadomasochistic or homoerotic.

A year later, as a result of a compromise, that ban was dropped. Instead, the NEA chairman is now required to take into account an applicant’s “general standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public.”

The artists contend that this restriction violates free-speech protections and is also unconstitutionally vague since it is based on a subjective standard. “All artists can do is attempt to avoid controversial art,” said David Cole, an attorney for the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights, which is providing defense for the artists along with the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Campaign for Freedom of Expression.

The government is expected to defend the decency language before U.S. District Judge A. Wallace Tashima by pointing out that it has not led to the rejection of a single grant. But Cole said the NEA never discloses the reasons for turning down a funding request.

Tashima will also hear arguments on the government’s motion to dismiss the entire NEA Four lawsuit. The artists maintain that their grants were denied on political grounds and that the government violated their rights under the Privacy Act by disclosing confidential information on their grant applications.

The judge is not expected to rule today.