When Phil Robertson was suspended from the television channel A&E for anti-gay remarks in a magazine interview many questioned if this suspension violated Robertson’s first amendment rights. In order to determine if this suspension was a violation of rights first you must break down the first amendment and get a closer look at what the freedom of speech gives you the liberty to say publicly. The first amendment does not give you the right to say whatever you like. The freedom of speech is protected by the first amendment, although obscene comments are not protected by the first amendment. In order to determine if the suspension on Robertson is a violation of rights we need to define obscenity and what is considered obscene. In my opinion, I …show more content…
The Merriam Webster dictionary defines the word “obscene” as follows. Relating to sex in an indecent or offensive way. In the statement Robertson said I do not believe he uses indecent or offensive language. Robertson expressed his feelings towards the subject in an appropriate manner. I did not find his statement offensive towards anyone because he does not specifically call anyone or any group of people out. Phil Robertson has been quoted saying "It seems like, to me, a vagina -- as a man -- would be more desirable than a man's anus. That's just me. I'm just thinking: There's more there! She's got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I'm saying? But hey, sin: It's not logical, my man. It's just not logical,” This statement falls under the protection of the first amendment because the freedom of speech protects an individual’s opinion. The freedom of speech does not protect obscene comments and in my opinion I do not find this statement as obscene or offensive. I do not find this statement offensive because everyone has their own desires and should not be influenced by someone else’s opinion. This statement falls under the protection of the first amendment and that is why A&E overturned Phil Robertson’s suspension and removed his
Due to the unfortunate incident that happened recently and resulted in EMTALA violations by a DeTar Emergency Department Staff, it in of grave importance that DeTar Hospital develop policies and procedures that will eradicate deficient practices promptly and put in place sustainable solutions to prevent a reoccurrence.
On April 26, 1983, Matthew Fraser, a student at Bethel High School in Bethel, Washington, delivered a speech nominating a fellow student for a student elective office to his fellow high school mates. The assembly was part of a school-sponsored educational program in self government. During the entire speech, Fraser referred to his candidate in terms of "elaborate, graphic, and explicit sexual metaphor." However, no obscene language was used.
This case involved a public high school student, Matthew Fraser who gave a speech nominating another student for a student elective office. The speech was given at an assembly during school as a part of a school-sponsored educational program in self-government. While giving the speech, Fraser referred to his candidate in what the school board called "elaborate, graphic, and explicit metaphor." After his speech, the assistant principal told Fraser that the school considered the speech a violation of the school's "disruptive-conduct rule." This prohibited conduct that interfered with the educational process, including obscene, profane language or gestures. After Fraser admitted he intentionally had used sexual innuendo in the speech, he was told that he would be suspended from school for three days, and his name would be removed from the list of the speakers at the graduation exercises.
According to the Webster-dictionary The First Amendment is an amendment to the Constitution of the United States guaranteeing the right of free expression; includes freedom of assembly and freedom of the press and freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Since the first Amendment was written by our founding fathers and is part of our constitution it should never be violated. Being able to say and express what one thinks without been afraid of going to jail. In the essays “First Amendment Junkie” by Susan Jacoby and “Let’s Put Pornography back in the closet” by Susan Brownmiller both writes about the First Amendment is when one can express them. Jacoby and Brownmiller both write about pornography and the first amendment using pathos and ethos in their writing. However, Jacoby’s essay is more reliable because she uses ethos to provide credible resources, as well as use pathos to appeal to her credibility.
This was a man who at the time was in the position of being elected associate justice of the Supreme Court. Anita Hill, who had worked for him as his personal assistant testified about these comments made by Clarence Thomas, "pornographic materials depicting individuals with large penises or large breasts involved in various sex acts. On several occasions Thomas told me graphically of his own sexual prowess (Smolowe)". This. Is. Not. Harmless. Garvis clearly did not take Hill 's words seriously and gave her own two cents about it, "Maybe he talked dirty to Anita Hill. Maybe He didn’t. Something obviously went on between the two of them that was sexually charged". What we are doing now is brushing off this man 's actions because a woman 's opinion is not valued enough because the attention was unwanted so there was no so called "sexual
Freedom of speech has been a controversial issue throughout the world. Our ability to say whatever we want is very important to us as individuals and communities. Although freedom of speech and expression may sometimes be offensive to other people, it is still everyone’s right to express his/her opinion under the American constitution which states that “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press”. Although this amendment gave people the right express thier opinions, it still rests in one’s own hands as how far they will go to exercise that right of freedom of speech.
suggested that individual communities had the right to define what is obscene and thus be
In today’s case, we are looking at the supposed obscenity of an art exhibit in the Minneapolis Institute of Art (MIA) and supposed violations of free speech. This art exhibit contained various photographs, including what has been described as “substantially lewd or indecent” under certain Minnesota statutes. With this case, we have a divided court and a variety of issues with both sides of the arguments. In this case, the ACLU is attempting to say that their clients’ freedom of speech rights have been violated with the restraint of these pieces of an exhibit. We tend to disagree and side with the City of Minneapolis, in part. For the issue of freedom of speech infringements, we believe that the rights of the 17-year old senior have not been violated, and that the freedom of speech rights of the artist himself were violated in part, pertaining the restraint of one of the pieces of the exhibit.
What is the First Amendment? According to the “Webster-dictionary” The First Amendment is “an amendment to the Constitution of the United States guaranteeing the right of free expression; includes freedom of assembly and freedom of the press and freedom of religion and freedom of speech.” Since the First Amendment was written by our founding fathers and is part of the constitution it should not be violated. This amendment secures the freedom of individuals to express their thoughts freely. In the essays “First Amendment Junkie” by Susan Jacoby and “Let’s Put Pornography back in the closet” by Susan Brownmiller both authors write about the First Amendment. By implementing ethos and pathos in their writing both authors write about pornography
After years have gone by, courts have decided that certain types of speech are not protected. These unprotected types of speech include threats, child pornography, and fighting words. Fighting words are words that can incite conflict. Some say that what the Westboro Baptist Church was saying was fighting words. However, anyone can consider anything a fighting word if the people using them are opposing your beliefs. This is why I don’t think that fighting words were actually used and why they should be protected. Public debate topics such as gay rights should also be protected by the first amendment because one side of the story just because the judges don’t agree with what they are saying. The opinion/belief cannot be taken into account when the Supreme Court is making a decision, only the
The Robertson’s received massive amounts of support and many people did not agree with his suspension from the show. Sarah Palin tweeted “Free speech is an endangered species: Those ‘intolerants’ hatin and taking on Duck Dynasty patriarch for voicing personal opinion take on all of us.” (Patriarch Phil Robertson Suspended, 2013) The governor of Louisiana also publically criticized the A&E network for the su...
Reno v. ACLU is the 1997 landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court providing sweeping free speech protection on the Internet. Understandably, commentators from legal and political spheres have discussed the case in terms of familiar First Amendment issues, including precedents from telecommunications law, the long-recognized exception to free speech for "obscenity," and concern for the exposure of children to inappropriate materials.
In her essay “Let’s Put Pornography Back in the Closet,” Susan Brownmiller, a prominent feminist activist, argues that pornography should not be protected under the First Amendment (59). Her position is based on the belief that pornography is degrading and abusive towards women (Brownmiller 59). She introduces the reader to the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, and explains how it relates to her beliefs on censoring pornographic material (Brownmiller 58). In addition, she provides examples of First Amendment controversies such as Miller v. California and James Joyce’s Ulysses to explain how the law created a system to define pornographic material (Brownmiller 58). She described the system that used a three-part test as confusing (Brownmiller 58). Regardless of whether or not the First Amendment was intended to protect obscenities, she and many others believe that the legislatures should have the final say in the decision of creating and publishing pornography (Brownmiller 60).
By censoring out offensive topics people are also excluding important topics such as rape, abortion, menstruation, contraception, lesbianism, and all other sex related topics from conversation (Jacoby 49). There are also many dangers in censoring people’s freedom of speech and expression. Bok believes that, “One reason why the power of censorship is so dangerous is that it is extremely difficult to decide when a particular communications is offensive enough to warrant prohibition…” (70). Bok is saying that it is hard to determine if something is too offensive. But nothing is too offensive. People need to learn to brush off hurtful words because there are ignorant people in this world, and it is hard to change them. The first Amendment has little to no power over private institutions, therefore many private institutions have censorship rules, but these rules are difficult to keep in effect because they must be enforced equally and fairly (Bok 70). There is no scale to judge how offensive or obscene something is, and there is no just way to determine if something should be
The extent to which broadcast media should be censored for offensive language and behavior is a complex issue. Standard for the censorship may be quite different across countries in the world. In my point of view, the degree of the censorship should depend on different groups of audience.