At what point do people’s First Amendment rights become compromised? Is it when others become offended? Should what people say and write be censored in order to protect the feelings of others? Is obscenity supposed to be protected by the First Amendment? Many people believe that offensive and obscene topics should be censored or banned, because they are hurtful to some people. Others believe that the First Amendment supports all speech and expression. Granted if someone went into a movie theater and yelled, “fire” they would be persecuted, but is someone wanted to peacefully hang a Confederate flag they should not get in trouble because they are not physically hurting anybody. If people are limited in what they are able to say because it is …show more content…
offensive or obscene; it will infringe upon their First Amendment Right, and close lines of communication. If something is offensive it causes someone to feel hurt, angry, or upset and is rude or insulting. Almost everyone finds something to be irritating, angering, or annoying, which in turn makes it offensive. If something is offensive it is not physically harming someone, it is only hurting their feelings. “The fact that speech is protected by the First Amendment does not necessarily mean that it is right, proper, or civil” (Bok 69-70). The U. S Supreme Court has heard many cases regarding censoring the First Amendment due to it being offensive. The rulings of these cases states that “…the display of swastikas or the Confederate flag clearly falls within the protection of the free speech clause of the First Amendment and cannot be forbidden simply because it offends the feelings of many members of the community” (Bok 70). In reality, just because something makes you feel sad or upset does not mean that other people should not have the liberty to say or do it. For example, let’s reminisce back to the halftime show of Super Bowl 50. Beyoncé Knowles, one of the most popular entertainers of this time, produced one of the most offensive performances in the game’s history. She and her dancers were accused of wearing costumes similar to the uniforms of the Black Panther Party, offending many people. Should Beyoncé and her dancers persecuted? Many people would say yes. They believe that the performance was offensive and should not have been allowed on national television. Even though they are not part of the Black Panther Party, others would say Beyoncé is allowed to say and express whatever she wants. As long as there is no physical harm, people should be able to do or say whatever they choose or desire. Obscenity is also an extremely sensitive topic.
Many people disagree on whether or not pornography is supported by the First Amendment. According to the Supreme Court something is obscene if it, “… [depicts] patently offensive, hard-core sexual conduct; lack serious scientific, literary, artistic, or political value; and appeal to the prurient interest of an average person…” (Brownmiller 62). This ruling is unfair because all of these requirements are based on a matter of opinion. There is no way to prove that something lacks artistic or political value, or if it is “hard-core sexual conduct”. Brownmiller also says that all images and videos of are completely untasteful and obscene, they show a ‘… presentation of the female body being stripped, bound, raped, tortured, mutilated, and murdered in the name of commercial entertainment” (Brownmiller 62). She believes that all pornography is obscene and dehumanizing to women, but that is not all women’s opinion. In an informal experiment conducted by Susan Jacoby, she surveyed five women asking their opinion an image in Penthouse; the replies ranged from “lovely” and “sensuous” to “revolting” and “demeaning” (Jacoby 49). Also, if someone does not want to watch pornography or look at magazines of revealing girls, then they should look for those videos or subscribe to those magazines. One can choose what they can and cannot …show more content…
see. Also, by censoring freedom speech and expression we are limiting people’s lines of communication.
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
censored. If the government censors people’s freedom of speech and expression, they are abandoning the first amendment. They are withholding conversations about important topics and they are limiting people’s rights as Americans. Everyone has the right to speak their mind, and the government should not have the right to censor that. It is what this country was built on.
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.
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).
In 1978 a radio station owned by Pacifica Foundation Broadcasting out of New York City was doing a program on contemporary attitudes toward the use of language. This broadcast took place on a mid-afternoon weekday. Immediately before the broadcast the station announced a disclaimer telling listeners that the program would include "sensitive language which might be regarded as offensive to some."(Gunther, 1991) Pacifica believed that this was enough warning to give people who would be offended, but placing a warning in front of something is like placing chocolate cake in front of a fat guy. Humans thirst for the unknown, and at this time, sexual perversion was a big unknown.
Let’s Put Pornography Back in the Closet” is an persuasive essay written by Susan Brown Miller stating and giving her reasons on why she thinks pornography should be removed from all the shelves in America. She goes on to state what kind of influence porn has negatively on society, and how it’s no good in our society to persuade readers that pornography should be taken off of public shelves. In her article, she does state very valid points and substantial reasons why pornography should be removed from shelves. But also, she does sound a lot like a person who is very critical of something that she believes is wrong morals wise because that’s how she was raised perhaps. Some of the methods she uses are the analogy method, quantitative method, and some emotional appeal as well. She also has some unsupported generalizations that she had made up herself. Either way, there were a few instances to where I was completely against with Miller’s arguments, but they were outweighed by the instances where I did agree with Miller. In all, this essay persuades me to support her opinion on pornography being taken out the public shelves because of the valid reasons and points that she used to support her opinion.
The First Amendment 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 of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" (First Amendment Oct. 20, 2013). But "the First Amendment does not protect all speech from government censorship, and it does not prevent private non-government entities from censoring. Years of US Supreme Court decisions have identified exceptions to the general rule that the governments in the United States cannot censor" (Censorship Copyright © 2002). American citizen's right of freedom of speech should be held in the highest integrity and any kind of censorship of free speech should not be allowed because it take away those rights. However, censorship has been going on for centuries.
Should the First Amendment stop protecting hate speech? In Derek Bok’s “Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus”, he argues that hate speech should be protected as censorship would be against the First Amendment. He declares “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 or to weigh the degree is offensiveness against the potential value of communication.... if we were to forbid flags, it is only a short step to prohibiting offensive speakers” (Bok 67) What Bok is attempting to say is that we can technically declare anything as offensive. The idea of hate speech is varying on the opinion of a person rather than law.
Pornography is considered by many to be an unwelcome and distasteful part of our society. However, I argue that it is necessary to voice the unpopular viewpoints, under the Constitution. This paper is a defense of pornography as a constitutional right of free expression, under the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. In illustrating this argument, I will first define pornography as a concept, and then address central arguments in favor of pornography remaining legal and relatively unregulated – such as the development of the pornography debate throughout modern US law, and how activist groups address the censorship of adult entertainment.
When the individual gets attacked verbally because of their controversial statements, they claim that they had the right to speak their mind no matter how disturbing their words were. They use the First Amendment as a cover for their wrong-doings, and that is never okay. They need to be educated on what they can and cannot say. Just because the First Amendment guarantees a person the freedom of speech, does not mean that they are entitled to say whatever they please. The article “Freedom of Speech” explains if an individual were to use “fighting words” then they are automatically not covered under their First Amendment. The Supreme Court decided in the case Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire that “fighting words” were not constitutional, so they would not be protected under the First Amendment (2). Many people misunderstand that much of their opinions that they speak consists of words that are unclear. More than half of the time the words they use in their statements are considered to be fighting words, for they are rude and ignorant. There is no need for the obscene words that they use to be protected under the First Amendment. They must become aware of their lack of knowledge for what “fighting words” are; furthermore, they
Susan Jacoby is a self-proclaimed "first amendment junkie" as she clearly states in her essay. What she is trying to portray is that she believes that the first amendment is the most important within the bill of rights, and that each individual should be able to take responsibility for their words. Having the first amendment regulated by any institution diminishes the speech that remains. Jacoby discusses the pornographic business throughout her essay, and the feminist who oppose their existence. A particularly interesting comment she makes is oddly specific towards the issues being brought up in the news lately about protest and neo-Nazis, "…it is ridiculous to suggest that the porn shops on 42nd Street are more disgusting to women than a
Instead, Bok suggests that we address the problem by communicating with those who are causing these disturbances and understand . Also in the essay, “Freedom of Speech Means Freedom to Hate”, Christopher Hitchens explains why banning those hate speeches may be an unwise decision for society as a whole as freedom of speech does sometimes prevent the tyranny of majority from happening. While the essay, “Why Women Aren’t Welcome on the Internet”, Amanda Hess makes for the argument that the internet have become a new and terrifying way for people to bully women who uses it. The last article, “The Case for Censoring Hate Speech,” Sean McElwee argues that censoring is required to help protect the minorities and to foster a better society. Freedom of expression should not be limited for limiting speech does not help solve the root problem and it would be near impossible for any person to regulate what people are allowed to say and not allowed to say without having any sort of bias against anyone in
Censorship has been a big part of the world’s history and especially America’s history. One of the most quoted amendments to the United States constitution is the first amendment; “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ...” This amendment guaranteeing free speech, press, and religion is still heavily debated and contested today. Censorship, as a challenge to free speech and press has been allowed many times and has been heavily debated itself. Many people censor for many different reasons and in many different forms. Censorship itself is not always a bad thing and has in some cases been used for protection of the general population.
The “Founding Father’s” made many statements that state that the basis of all other rights are protected by the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects the rights of free speech, press, assembly, petition, and press. Benjamin Franklin stated, “Whoever would overthrow the Liberty of a Nation, must begin by subduing the Freeness of Speech” (Franklin, 1722). Franklin believed that the First Amendment allows people to go unpunished for expressing their thoughts and feelings into speech. The only way for someone to completely override the government would be to completely get rid of the First Amendment rights. Benjamin Franklin is making a statement that without freedom of speech, then there would be no freedom or liberty in our nation. This can be seen in many countries, like communist
The First Amendment does not protect the state or quality of being indecent, immoral, and vulgar. Being obscene is strongly offending the morality or personal rights others have as members of society. "Federal law prohibits the use of misleading domain names, words, or digital images on the Internet with intent to deceive viewers into viewing harmful or obscene material Miller vs. California"(Citizen's Guide to U.S. Federal Law on Obscenity). While it is true that the morality of another person should not be violated there should be an acceptation or group of words that should be permitted to be offensive. This word should be known to everyone and accepted as fighting. These words should indicate a willingness to fight or challenge someone with a vocabulary that expresses an insult, without jeopardizing an ethnic, racial, or sexist nature.
She also found that pornography leads men and women to experience conflict, suffering, and sexual dissatisfaction. http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/porno.html) Hence, censorship is essential in order to maintain peace and stability in the society. It will decrease the crime rate. Children can be exposed to sexual matters in school in a different manner than in education. Excessive amounts of sexually explicit material would surely be harmful.
Words are very powerful, and sometimes the words we use offend people. Freedom of speech is highly valued but what happens when your freedom becomes hurtful or disrespectful to someone else? There are so many different kinds of people and different things that offend each person. In this day where we are more inclined to say whatever we want, we see more and more offense being taken to the words that get said. It's hard to understand why certain words can be insulting to someone when it may not seem that way to you. We have to ask ourselves, why do we care what other people say and should we censer everything that goes into the public just so people don't get offended?