Is It Protected Speech Under The Constitution?

It is probably no accident that freedom of speech is the first freedom mentioned in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The Constitution's framers believed that freedom of inquiry and liberty of expression were the hallmarks of a democratic society.

What is pornography? According to the dictionary pornography means “Obscene writings, drawings, photographs”. Yet, many people disagree with what is consider to be pornography in society today. Susan Brownmiller is a feminist activist who wrote an essay “ Lets Put Pornography Back in the Closet” argues that pornography should be not be protect by the 1st Amendment or be allowed into society. Meanwhile, Susan Jacoby a writer of “ A First Amendment Junkie” disagrees with Brownmiller because she believes that it’s everyone’s right and that society should not be able to censor pornography. Should society let the government censor pornography just because we may not approve this type of act. I agree with both of the writer’s that pornography should

How much we value the right of free speech is put to its severest test when the speaker is someone we disagree with most. Speech that deeply offends our morality or is hostile to our way of life warrants the same constitutional protection as other speech because the right of free speech is indivisible. However, in recent years, the right to free speech is one of legal and moral ambiguity-What separates offensive free speech from dangerous or threatening (and presumably illegal) hate speech? Under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, every American citizen should be entitled to the right of free expression, thought, and speech. While free speech, including racial, sexist, or otherwise prejudiced remarks, must protected no matter

To begin with, there are three types of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment: obscenity, libel, and slander. Obscenity is "anything which depraves or corrupts minds open to immoral influence" (Freedom of Speech, 2003). Despite the fact that the definition of obscenity has changed throughout the years, Congress, in general, has reached a consensus in determining that obscenity covers anything that is directed towards or involves youths, including child pornography. For example, in 1949, the Supreme Court upheld, in Rosenberg v. Board of Education of City of New York, that the Board of Education did not have the right to ban schools from carrying books such as Oliver Twist and The

Susan Jacoby's essay represents her unique image as a “First Amendment Junkie” and what it means for her in society of her times. Her belief that the First Amendment must be carried on at all costs without regarding the content, which in this case she expresses particularly in pornography. Jacoby states that allowing censorship of pornography could open up the possibilities of censoring other things if so, what could be those other things? Could we agree with her? Had we censored pornography back in the 70's would we as women be where we are now? After analyzing Jacoby's article, She does not excuse or deny that pornography can be or is vulgar,

I would like to thank you for representing the state of Iowa for 14 years. Thank you for your time. You have done such a great job representing Iowa’s fourth congressional district. You served in the Iowa state senate for six years and have made changes for us to make Iowa a better place to live.

As US citizens, we should be appalled that such practices are allowed. Not only are we deprived of rights, but we are subjected to the control of others. If I choose to go home and turn on my TV to see a half-clad woman and hear frequent vulgarities, then by all means, I, as a citizen of this free country, should be allowed to do so. Who is to determine what is “degenerate” or “depraved”? What should qualify a person to become a censor?

One of the many battle grounds of debate in the U.S. currently is what actions and speech are protected by the first amendment. Since there is so much that is not directly defined in the Constitution, there is room for interpretation on whether or not certain it is protected by it. One topic in particular is supporting the terrorist group ISIS. ISIS is a group of Muslim extremist based out of Syria. Their goals are to create a radical extremist state, the caliphate, through religious violence (Abu Mohammed). This group has been shown many times on the news, either making threats or executing prisoners. They have been attacking people in the Middle East, and are now currently fighting a war against the U.S., England, and many other opponents to terrorism. Verbally supporting ISIS should not be protected by the U.S. Constitution, due to the violent and threatening nature of the group.

A case by Roth tried to challenge the idea regarding the nature of obscenity whether it was a variable or a constant matter. Obscenity in any case took many dimensions when it came to matters relating to the material and the contented they contained. Roth challenged the Supreme Court that obscenity was not constitutional and there it needed to be given a different approach. He argued that this term did not have a specific meaning and it could take any shape based on circumstances.

They have the right to prohibit these materials when it ? carries significant danger of offending the sensibilities of unwilling recipients or of exposure to juveniles? (Miller v. California, 1973). Burger also wrote on behalf of the majority that ? We hold that obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press.?

The first amendment, of the Constitution, protects all citizens from Congress making laws that “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.” Most U.S citizens how this amendment, or at least a summary of it, memorized. Citizens have the right to speak their mind as they sit fit, practice any religion, and protest. However, in modern times, it is understandable to see why this is not entirely true. Court decisions have put many restrictions on the liberties presented in the 1st amendment. A citizen cannot use religion as an excuse for sacrifices, or protest in violent fashions. The most controversial, and complicated, restrictions are those prohibiting certain kinds of speech. One of the Supreme is that obscenity is not protected under the freedom of speech. A problem quickly raise was: what, exactly, is obscenity? Under Miller v California, to be obscene “a publication must, taken as whole, appeal to prurient interest, must contain patently offensive depictions or descriptions of specified sexual conduct, and on the whole have no serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.” It made sense to ban specific types of speech that was, at the root, meant to be hateful or obscene. However, Indianapolis legislator, in American Booksellers Association v. Hudnut, used

America is known to be a land where we as American citizens can be anything we want to be. As humans, we all face adversities that mold the way we carry out decisions and have an impact on the way we make decisions and view situations. American citizens have the right to vote for our leaders, and it is vital to exercise this freedom. The First Amendment constitutes our freedom of speech, but if not properly exercise our right to vote, how can we justify protesting the outcome of policies.

For this weeks’ discussion post I chose the Supreme Court case of Pope v. Illinois (1987). This case has several values that make it significant in the field of obscenity and the First Amendment. Referring back to Miller v. California and how it set the standard for identifying obscene material not protected by the First Amendment, some portions are a bit more obscure than others. Take the third or “value” prong of the three part test to determine “whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” Prior to this case it was unclear how to exactly assess whether a work lacked serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value, but when two attendants at adult bookstores were charged with obscenity under Illinois law by selling certain magazines to undercover police, they moved to dismiss on grounds that the then-current version of the Illinois obscenity statute violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The judge in both trials instructed the jury that in

Freedom of speech is protected by the United States Constitution under the First Amendment. Americans have the right to voice their opinions and ideas without fear of retribution or suppression from the government. Commercial speech is speech, usually in the form of a commercial or advertisement, where a company is trying to influence a person to buy a product or service. Commercial speech has less protection than normal speech.

Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 borrows the definition of obscenity from section 292 of the Penal Code to punish the spreading of obscene materials over the internet. It is worth to take note of the fact that S. 98 of the then Code of Criminal Procedure was also amended to empower a magistrate to enter and search premises with a warrant and take possession of obscene materials. It was only after the passing of the Obscene Publications Act in England in 1959 (and perhaps owing to unsatisfactory and the widely criticized judgment in Lady Chatterly Lover‟s Case13) that the legislature saw a need for reform. Thus, a select committee was appointed under the chairmanship of Akbar Ali Khan in 1963, the recommendations made by the committee resulted in the passing of Act 36 of 1969, which brought about several significant changes in the provision. The 1969 amendments sought to bring clarity on the concept of obscenity.