I think that this shows a view that has contempt for the public and assumes that the artists view alone should overrule any purpose of an arts institution.

Also, that there should be some real discussion of what should be taxpayer funded as far as what is allowed or not or in a taxpayer funded institution.

Art to shock or "challenge" may not be appropriate in that particular venue. In one of the incidents that the article calls censorship, a city first approved-its first mistake-a video performance to be shown at a city gallery-then removed it. "The 4-minute piece, Spictacle II: La Tortillera (2014), shows Ibarra performing as La Chica Boom, her burlesque stage persona. A minstrelsy of Chicanx gender and racial stereotypes, the piece culminates with the artist strapping a Tapatio bottle to her groin and ejaculating the hot sauce onto tortillas. Raunchy by design, the video is a gripping commentary on sexual and racial tropes."

Later in the article, the artist calls even warnings put up as censorship. "It is soft censorship, Ibarra says, that she has met throughout her 20-year career. For her, this takes the shape of warnings that institutions often display alongside presentations of her work. Such interventions have led her to conclude that “the display of sexual content is still a profound site of anxiety in the arts.”"

This organization that supposedly works against censorship, often works with public institutions. Not everything gets into museums or exhibits. But something these artists don't consider is that these places exist to serve the community, not whatever the artist decides to do.