Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Pornography and the first amendment free essay
Censorship of pornography
Censorship of pornography
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Pornography and the first amendment free essay
Susan Jacoby, in her essay entitled “A First Amendment Junkie,” attacks those who believe that the first amendment should not be cause for the continuation of public obscenity. Jacoby, adamant defender of the first amendment, questions those who wish for the freedom of expression to be denied in the case of pornography, yet seem complacent about the racism and sexism that comes from freedom of speech as well. Additionally, Jacoby argues that it is too difficult to distinguish pornography from beauty and art from obscenity. One person may see David as a wonder to behold, and yet another may look at it as degrading towards men. Jacoby believes that rather than censorship-supporters controlling what their family watches, they want the government
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).
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.
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.
The United State of America, established by the Founding Father who lead the American Revolution, accomplished many hardship in order to construct what America is today. As history established America’s future, the suffering the United State encountered through history illustrate America’s ability to identify mistakes and make changes to prevent the predictable. The 2nd Amendment was written by the Founding Father who had their rights to bear arms revoked when they believe rising up to their government was appropriate. The Twentieth Century, American’s are divided on the 2nd Amendment rights, “The right to bear arms.” To understand why the Founding Father written this Amendment, investigating the histories and current measures may help the American people gain a better understanding of gun’s rights in today’s America.
John Todd and Gail Hamilton both wrote their views on women rights, both have different view points and are controversial still today. John Todd is heavily influenced by his religious beliefs and is much more conservative in his thinking. Gail Hamilton refutes Todd's views on the subject which in the time of writing was something very uncommon.
On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights was ratified effective by Congress. These first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America promised the states certain rights and freedoms which could not be infringed by the government. After all, the founding fathers knew from experience that men in their weakness were often tempted by power. They had become all too familiar with this when under the control of King George in England. Therefore, in order to protect the future people of their beautiful country, they promised certain liberties which could not be taken away. Every single one of these freedoms is important for the United States of America. However, the second amendment is especially important to our nation because it allows the people to protect their freedom and defend themselves and the common good against an overreaching government.
The first amendment ensures us the freedom of speech. The people of this country use that to voice their opinion on issues in our society. What the average citizen doesn’t know is that their first amendment can be revoked in terms of time, place, and the manner they are exercising it. Recently there have been many protests following homicides of black males by the hands of law enforcement. We’ve seen across the country where an officer involved shooting results in violence among the community. There are rioting, violent protests, putting other citizens at risk of either property loss or being injured, and fires that are set. We know that every agency across the US is just one-officer-involved shooting away from staring down the barrel of that
we had no legally protected rights of free speech in anything like the form we
The Bill of Rights, “First Amendment Prohibits Congress from establishing religion and restricting it free exercise; also prohibits Congress from abridging freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and petition. So does the First Amendment cover obscenity? The Supreme Court says No, it has declined to grant First Amendment protection to utterances and writings that are obscene or defamatory. Justice Potter Stewart expressed the difficulty in his famous utterance “I shall not today attempt to further define obscenity, but I know it when I see it”. The Judicial system used the Miller test, a test that uses three questions to define obscenity. Question 1-does the average person applying contemporary, community standards, believe that the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeal to a prurient interest? Question 2-Is the material potently offensive? Question 3-Does the work, taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value?
As violence and murder rates escalate in America so does the issue of gun control. The consequence of this tragedy births volatile political discourse about gun control and the Second Amendment. The crux of the question is what the founding fathers meant when they wrote, “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Since the writing of the Second Amendment the make and model of firearms has changed dramatically and so has the philosophies of the people. A rifle is no longer defined as a single shot, muzzle-loading musket used to primarily protect families or solely for food. Should the weapons we use today be protected by an amendment written nearly 222 years ago? Should the second amendment be rewritten? Does the Second Amendment apply to individual citizens? These questions spark extensive debates in Washington D.C. regarding what the founding fathers intended the amendment to be. The answer to this question lies in the fact that despite hundreds of gun control articles having been written , still the gun control issue remains unresolved. History tells us gun control debates will be in a stalemate until our judicial system defines or rewrites the Second Amend. This paper will examine the history of the Second Amendment, and attempt to define the framers intent, gun control legislation and look at factors that affect Americans on this specific issue...
The First Amendment is what we chose because it covers good areas (topics) that are occurring in the world on a daily basis. Many people like the items that The First Amendment covers, and some people don't like them. Either way there are many other amendments that have been ratified by the two-thirds of the House and Senate. There are ten amendments in the constitution, but there are 17 other amendments that aren't in the constitution. Therefore, in total there are 27 amendments.
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” This quote from Benjamin Franklin illustrates how an emphasis on safety can drastically reduce the freedoms enjoyed by citizens of the United States, especially the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which states that “...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” However, with active shooter situations such as Columbine; the Tucson, Arizona shootings, which nearly killed former Representative Gabrielle Giffords; and recent situations at Newtown, Connecticut; Los Angeles International Airport; and Westfield Garden State Plaza mall in New Jersey, the federal government has questioned this right guaranteed to us as U.S. Citizens. In Congress, it is a back-and-forth battle between the Republicans, who favor less gun control legislation and a literal translation of the Second Amendment, and the Democrats who would like to see more gun control legislation to protect the safety of citizens. However, more gun control legislation would punish law-abiding citizens, be a direct violation of the Second Amendment, and expand the power of the federal government into areas where the Founding Fathers never wanted it.
America, the ideal place for freedom, is home to a vast amount of liberties and rights that many countries do not acquire. In this country, citizens have the freedom to practice any religion they desire, live wherever they want to live, and love whoever they want to love. In this country, citizens have the right to choose any career, ranging from school teacher to politician and the liberty to reproduce as many children as they would like and speak their minds freely. In this country, with one click of a button, citizens have the ability to view explicit, videotaped, sexual activity for no cost at all. Pornography or the pornographic industry is one of America’s most profitable industries, making billions of dollars annually. Despite pornography’s
Catharine MacKinnon, in her book Feminism Unmodified, takes a unique approach to the problem of gender inequality in America. She claims that pornography defines the way in which America’s patriarchal society perpetuates male dominance, and attacks traditional liberal methods that defend pornography on the basis of the first amendment’s right to free speech. According to MacKinnon, pornography is not an example of speech but rather an act. She proposes that this act discriminates against women as a class, and therefore violates their civil rights and should be outlawed. MacKinnon’s critics may think her argument is excessively radical, and contemporary society may not embrace the changes she suggests. However, even if she is deliberately provocative Catharine MacKinnon’s message is worthwhile: The American male power structure dominates women and must be changed. Establishing sexual equity in this power structure would be a major step in the struggle for gender equality within American communities.
Kieran, M. (2008, January 28). Art, censorship and morality. Open Learn, the Open University. Retrieved January 5, 2014 from http://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/culture/philosophy/art-censorship-and-morality