Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Freedom of expression vs censorship
Radio in the past
The first amendment freedom of speech
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Freedom of expression vs censorship
The First Amendment The 1st Amendment forbids Congress from enacting laws that would regulate speech or press before publication or punish after publication. At various times many states passed laws in contradiction to the freedoms guaranteed in the 1st Amendment. However broadcast has always been considered a special exemption to free speech laws for two reasons. 1) the most important reasons is the scarcity of spectrum and the 2) is the persuasiveness of the medium. Because radio and TV come into the house, and may be heard or seen by unsupervised children, the government feels a special responsibility to protect the American people. As Herbert Hoover said to, "doublegaurd them." This is the main reason why the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) independent agency of the United States government was created in 1934. The function of the commission is to regulate interstate and foreign radio, television, wire, and cable communications. To provide for orderly development and operation of broadcasting services, to provide for rapid, efficient nationwide and worldwide telegraph and telephone service. Individual radio and TV stations are responsible for selecting everything they broadcast. Stations are responsible for choosing their entertainment programming, as well as their programs concerning local issues, news, public affairs, religion, sports events, and other subjects. They also decide how their programs will be conducted and whether to edit or reschedule material for broadcasting. In 1987, the FCC responded to public complaints by adopting measures to restrict the use of explicit language about sex and bodily functions from the broadcasting media. Station operators voluntarily adhere to a code, designed by the ... ... middle of paper ... ... For Americans the right to speak out is a treasured one. Americans are not hesitant to criticize public officials as important as the president and as commonplace as the garbage collector. A free press, as guaranteed in the First Amendment, plays a watchdog function in a democratic society: bringing people the information they need to exercise independent judgment in electing public officials. A free press is than an important part of a democratic society; it enables the people to make informed choices. However, when interests clash as they often do, when the message is hateful or insulting or embarrassing, when one person's freedom of expression begins to affect the rights of others, it becomes a most difficult right to deliver judgment. The FCC has a very precarious position between violating the First Amendment and protecting the citizens of the United States.
In the Supreme Court case of the New York Times Co. vs. United States there is a power struggle. This struggle includes the entities of the individual freedoms against the interests of federal government. It is well known that the first amendment protects the freedom of speech, but to what extent does this freedom exist. There have been instances in which speech has been limited; Schenck vs. United States(1919) was the landmark case which instituted such limitations due to circumstances of “clear and present danger”. Many have noted that the press serves as an overseer which both apprehends and guides national agenda. However, if the federal government possessed the ability to censor the press would the government restrain itself? In the case of the Pentagon Papers the necessities of individual freedoms supersedes the scope of the national government.
In America the Amendment 1 of the U.S. Constitution gives the American people the right to peaceably assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Most notably Amendment 1 is known for and most often cited as giving the Freedom of Speech. Even before this amendment was ratified people in the U.S. were protesting, as in the Boston Tea Party. Protesting has been a way to effect change in America. A question to ask is this: is there a right way or wrong way to protest.
The first Amendment of the United States Constitution says; “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 peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”[1] Our fore fathers felt that this statement was plain enough for all to understand, however quite often the United States government deems it necessary to make laws to better define those rights that are stated in the Constitution. Today the framers would be both encouraged and discouraged by our modern interpretation the First Amendment the United States Constitution.
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.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” –U.S. Constitutional Amendments
The First Amendment guarantees that congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. U.S. CONST. amend. I. The courts have heeded the First Amendment’s underlying values in order to determine whether or not recording police officers is a freedom of the press and have answered in the affirmative; they have firmly established that the First Amendment extends further and encompasses a range of conduct related to receiving information and ideas. Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78, 82 (1st Cir. 2011). The Supreme Court has observed that the First Amendment protects the right to gather news from any source by means within the law. See id.at 82.
are expected to tell the truth, even if that truth was to put you in
What does freedom really mean? Many people today are aware that they have a right to freedom, but do not know what that really means. Religion, speech, press, assembly and petition are the five freedoms that the First Amendment specifically speaks about. Let’s take a look at the definition of each of the five freedoms, what the government says about our freedom, how it is acted out and portrayed in America, and a few case studies involving the different aspects of the First Amendment.
The Bill of Rights, when written, establishes and protects our personal freedoms from government interference. For centuries, governments have tried to regulate information thought to be inappropriate or offensive. Today’s technology has given the government an excuse to interfere with free speech. By claiming that radio frequencies are a limited resource, the government tells broadcasters what to say and what not to say. The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) carefully monitors news, public, and local programming for what they consider obscenity (Hyland).
In 1949, the United States Federal Communications Commission introduced a policy referred to as the Fairness Doctrine in which “broadcast journalist was required to dedicate airtime to controversial issues of the public concern in a balanced manner” (p 19). The rationale for the policy was the belief that the media without the requirement to present information regarding controversial issues in an equitable and balanced manner would possess the power to sway public opinion in a manner that would not serve the public interest. Given that many Americans receive their information through the mainstream media like the major television networks and cable broadcasting entities, as well as newspapers such as the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal,
The First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press, although that guarantee is not unrestricted (Applegate, 2007). Freedom of speech should not be subjected to political interference; yet, censorship is necessary in matters of national and military security (Applegate, 2007). Members of the press enjoy the First Amendment of free speech and free expression, but face criminal or tort liability if reporting is done undercover or information is leaked (West, 2014). I believe that freedom of speech and freedom of the press is the basic right of all reporters, as it is for all individuals. However, correspondents should conform to the highest ethical standards, respect the privacy of all citizens, and maintain the highest regard for confidentiality
The first amendment grants the freedom of the press, speech, and religion. The first amendment also grants that the media is immune from
AT&T had their abuse of the internet during an August 2007 concert. The band playing was Pearl Jam. The lead singer was an anti-Bush supporter and during the concert, he substituted some of the song lyrics with his lyrics. His lyrics were against Bush and AT&T was in charge of the concert. AT&T blocked the streaming of the concert and they blamed it on “excessive profanity”. His own lyrics did not contain profanity. His lyrics were “George Bush, leave this world alone” and “George Bush find yourself another home." His lyrics did not even mention profanity and it shocked the lead singer. After that, AT&T blamed it on the censorship on an external website contractor hired to watch the stream. They called “it being a mistake” and rereleased the stream with the lead singer’s lyrics (ACLU). The last point is what happened to the FCC rules and the argument against Net
" Time for the Supreme Court to End FCC Indecency Censorship. " The Huffington Post. N.p., 11 Jan. 2012.
Head, Tom . "Radio Censorship." About.com Civil Liberties. About.com, n.d. Web. 10 Dec. 2013. .