Susan Jacoby First Amendment Junkie Summary

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

march of Neo-Nazis...” (Jacoby p. 74). I would argue that today there are many people who would also consider themselves first amendment junkies.
Zachary Shemtob’s comment that “[t]he people should have the right to see what is being done in their name and with their tax dollars” (Shemtob p.

80) is inconsiderate to the induvial who is slated to be executed. To imply that the money being spent should be used to provide some form of media entertainment to the public is an inhumane thought. Inmate’s should have the option to have their execution be open to the public or not, much in the same way that an individual can donate their body to science after they die, this could provide the people with an educational experience that may not otherwise be made available to the public. Anyone involved with the process of sentencing someone to the death penalty should have a requirement to watch a pre-recorded or live session of an execution happening, so they understand the consequences of their decision. To one point made in Shemtob’s essay “[o]f greater concern is the possibility that broadcasting executions could have a numbing effect” (Shemtob p. 81) the release of executions publicly could lead to people losing their reservations about the thought of killing another person, though that could be said already with the amount of violence portrayed in media today. I think access to records regarding executions are more important to the taxpayers than being able to watch an

execution.
Gwen Wilde’s essay “Why the Pledge of Allegiance Should Be Revised” does give enough credence to the fact that no one is required to recite the pledge of allegiance. As stated by Wilde, however, “[i]f one remains silent while others are reciting the Pledge…one is open to the charge that one is unpatriotic” (Wilde p. 84) could not be a more powerful statement with the controversy happening today with the NFL. The fact that is widely publicizes today does not provide the relief needed to those who are not reciting the pledge, or in the case of the NFL players, standing for the anthem to be protected from their peers. Adding additional verbiage to illustrate that while technically there is the option to not recite the Pledge would not add any additional value to her argument. The expectations from those who may consider being silent during the pledge as being unpatriotic makes that a moot point.