In politics, in social commentary, in relationships, religions, and philosophies, freedom of expression becomes not only essential, but foundational; this applies even more to the arts. (Pardon me for that offensively vague and often useless term, "art.")
Yet if I support self-expression for artists, I also urge their self-awareness. On at least a surface level, artists must understand their own motives, their own messages. They must accept responsibility for what they do and say; they must never hide behind excuses of innocence or ignorance.
In short, artists cannot run away from values and principles.
If their only values are the values of the neoliberal marketplace, then I submit that they have no values. If their only principle is to scream out, "Here I am," then I would urge them to shut the hell up. Yet I suspect that most people would indeed stand for some principle or value beyond a purely egoistic need for self-display; to uncover what that principle or value might be calls for self-awareness and self-reflection, but above all, for self-honesty.
What these values might be will depend upon the artist, and even within a single skull, these values might clash, but conflict has always been the rocket fuel of art.
But what if an artist finds value in shattering idols, in tearing things apart, in smashing the stupid complacency of the audience? There is indeed value in screaming, "Fire!" while the world around you burns, because too many people never feel the heat until the final moment, and fool themselves into thinking that they alone will never be seared by flame or suffocated by smoke. The world is full of sleepers, and so we need alarm clocks.
Setting off alarms can lead to resentment, even hatred, for artists by their own generation, but so what? Artists thrive on controversy. What kills them is the silence of apathy.
Sometimes, though, artists cry, "Fire!" not to warn people, not to wake people up, but merely to offend. Again, offense is better than apathy, but is it sufficient to justify deliberately offensive art?
In this case, too, I see no excuse for self-ignorance. Artists who strive only to offend must accept the same responsibilities of artists who strive to set off alarm bells.
One responsibility is the consideration of context. An openly sexual display might not raise eyebrows in a nightclub or in a film for adults, but when that display is presented to a global audience, and what is more, to a global audience of children and their protective parents, no artist can claim the excuse of, "I didn't expect people to react this way!"
A second responsibility is the consideration of broad impact. Religions, like political ideologies, are necessary targets for satire, but when offered to a global audience, mockery can create a tsunami backlash.
This becomes a third responsibility. Artists must expect and accept this backlash as part of the deal: "You sneer, and people will sneer back. Loudly." Artists should have no more freedom to censor critics and an angry audience than the critics and the audience have to censor the arts.
Artists cannot afford to be hypocrites, or self-righteously complacent pawns of the corporate media, or snobs trapped within a bubble of perpetually-reflected worship by the professional managerial classes. With freedom of expression comes freedom of response, and the two must never be cut away from each other. When an audience is no longer allowed to reply, to shout, to argue back, then the arts will rot.