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.
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 United States government has always had an interest in protecting its people from anything it considers immoral. In support of this, the US government has implemented various rules and agencies to see that the rules and laws of the nation are being followed and that the government is adequately protecting the people of the United States. There are times, however, when the government or its agencies may overstep their bounds and operate with more authority than they were originally given. The case of the FCC v. Fox Television Stations does just that. It looks into an agency that takes its powers to do what it thinks is right and does what it thinks is best for the country. Without the proper oversight, however, the FCC might just be doing the complete opposite.
Herbeck, Tedford (2007). Boston College: Freedom of Speech in the United States (fifth edition) Zacchini vs. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Company 433 U.S. 562 Retrieved on March 2, 2008 from http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/zacchini.html
“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.
The United States Federal Communications Commission, also known as the FCC, introduced the Fairness Doctrine to make broadcasters report controversial issues of public importance in a manner that was equally balanced, honest, and fair. Broadcasting companies were required to provide a certain amount of airtime reporting accurate and fair information both for and against public issues. Broadcasters were not required to provide equal time for opposing views, but were required to present opposing viewpoints. Broadcasters were received broader boundaries as how to how they were to provide those opposing views. Because under the constitutional right of free speech, the government wanted to insure that broadcasting companies provided both accurate and fair information from both sides of the viewpoint.
The First Amendment protects the right of freedom of speech, which gradually merges into the modern perspective of the public throughout the history and present. The restriction over the cable TV and broadcast media subjected by the Federal Communications Commission violates the freedom of speech, irritating the dissatisfied public by controlling over what can be said on the air. Should the FCC interfere with the free speech of media? The discretion of content being presented to the public should not be completely determined by the FCC, but the public in its entirety which enforces a self-regulation with freedom and justice, upholding and emphasizing the freedom of speech by abolishing the hindrance the FCC brought.
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,
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...
America has been built on freedom throughout the years. Freedom to speak, freedom to choose, freedom to worship, and freedom to do just about anything you want within that of the law. America’s law has been designed to protect and preserve these freedoms. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. It assures citizens that the federal government shall not restrict freedom of worship. It specifically prohibits Congress from establishing an official, government supported church. Under The First Amendment, the federal government cannot require citizens to pay taxes to support a certain church, nor can people be prohibited from worshipping in any way they see fit. However, if a certain religion recommends a practice that is contrary to public morals, such as polygamy, Congress may prohibit such a practice (Weidner, Daniel, 2002). The people of the United States also have the right to assemble peaceably under the First Amendment. The only restriction comes from the word peaceably. Assembly may not be prevented, as long as the proper authorities have reasonable assurance that the meeting will be peaceful (Weidner, Daniel, 2002).
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).
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
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
Adam, Candeub. 2008. Media Ownership Regulation, the First Amendment, and Democracy’s Future. University of California, Davis
Head, Tom . "Radio Censorship." About.com Civil Liberties. About.com, n.d. Web. 10 Dec. 2013. .