The Role Of Censorship In Federal Law

     Since this country was founded, we have had a set of unalienable rights that our constitution guarantees us to as Americans. One of the most important rights that is mentioned in our constitution is the right to free speech. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the

Censorship within the United States is not only an immoral and "big-brotherly" practice, but also an insult to each and every one of those who call themselves US citizens. Every day, censors attempt to sanitize TV, radio, music, print, and even the Internet. In their infinite wisdom, they deem what should and should not be viewed by John Q. Public. Censors succeed in suppressing our free spirits and restraining our thoughts in virtually every medium.

The history of the world has undoubtedly been dominated by an endless struggle for power. However, after a brief glimpse into the pages of history it should not take long to realize that the trick to maintaining power lies in the control of information. Even the most fearsome military generals of the past acknowledge the power of the mind and ideas over lethal force. Former Soviet leader Joseph Stalin once said “… [Ideas] are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, then why should we let them have ideas.” Stalin’s quote personifies the main concept of this literature review which will be discussing the history of government censorship and its effects that are

The media could be determined a tremendous and powerful weapon. If used properly, it can provide society with great benefits, but if used in negative ways, it can destroy. In a modern world where information can spread as fast as wildfires, a reason to monitor or limit types of media appear rational, but along with that, irrational cases still exist. This argument has circled in the United States for a while and a decision needs to be made. Parents and citizens around the United States think concerningly about what our eyes witness on the news, in stores, on billboards, etc. When the government determines what appears in the media, it not only belittles citizens, but it denies the First Amendment, which states the basic rights of an American. Censorship of the media, as displayed in 1984, clearly exhibits the violation of the First Amendment, rightfully given to the citizens of the United States, by the founding fathers of this country.

To clarify, Near was accused of violating a law because he revealing wrongdoings of the local government. Moreover, trial judge issued an injunction “preventing Near from publishing the newspaper in the future” (“Near”). As one can see, Minnesota officials felt the need to stop and prevent someone from incriminating their misconducts. But obviously, their decision has violated Near’s freedom of press which states have to obey due to “Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment” (“Near”). At the end, Near appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court; finally, the court “voted 5–4 to declare the Minnesota Gag Law unconstitutional “(“Near”). It is important to realize that because of the process of selective incorporation, the federal government has the duty to reinforce states in protecting their people’s liberty.

formulated in the Gitlow v. New York case, applying freedom of speech to all states. This law grants arrest to officers for anyone who displays clear and present danger. For example, yelling, “bomb” on a plane could get you in some trouble for harming others. As for free press, we have not set many guidelines. It is a fundamental right in which cannot be taken away. A case we have studied practicing this particular point is the New York Times v. Sullivan. To peacefully assemble, it must be lawful and without riot. Many people argue the limit of the First Amendment; free speech could easily violate other Amendments.

In the past, there has always been conflict between the free press and the government. This conflict was very evident in the Pentagon Papers case, also known as New York Times Co. v. United States. Historically, the Supreme Court has disagreed on the limitations that can be placed on the First Amendment. The Supreme Court faced these issues in the case of The New York Times. The newspaper obtained a copy of a Defense Department report that explained government deception in the Vietnam War. The Pentagon Papers emerged when the American people disagreed on the United States involvement in the war. Under the First Amendment, The New York Times argued

In what ways has censorship played a role in changing the conceptions of the American Dream? First let’s start by clarifying what the American Dream actually is. Deepening the American Dream is a “project that engenders a rediscovered sense of community in our society and empowers our capacities to receive and relate to those we think of as other” (fetzer.org). Censorship has played way too many roles in messing with the way people think. One way is through the media. Censorship in the media is a big deal. The government only tries to get us to see what they want us to see. They really don’t want us to know the truth or reality, so they give us the half-truth or a version they think would make better sense to us.

Have you ever heard the word, censorship? If not, this is what it means. Censorship is the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts. That is what people are trying to do to videos of stunts on YouTube, and they shouldn’t.

Just like art tastes and interpretation changes over the decades,.m so does the people and federal interpretation of hate/obscene speech changes. The courts are in the fore front of protection free speech from the government constant attempts of government regulation on the basis of the same First Amendment. However, security matters are given a priority among speech matters and a case of national security often restricts information being broadcast or published by media houses.

In the past, the State of Minnesota passed the “Public Nuisance Law” this law allowed the court system to suppress the publication of any “malicious, scandalous and defamatory newspaper”. For one thing, with this new law the judges were able to stop any future publication of any newspaper they decided

When I first heard the word censorship, I did not know what to think really. Censorship to me was like R-rated movies, limitations in school and certain government rules. I knew that censorship had a negative meaning behind it and that its popularly practiced in other countries. When I looked more into censorship, I had no clue how much of our world actually provoked it as well. I began looking into the definition of censorship and a light bulb went off in my head! I realized that in high school, I learned about the censorship of journalism in America. With that and the help of our professors writing outline, I was able to begin the idea process of this essay. This essay allowed me to push my limits as a writer and make my writing even better!

In the past people have gone to different levels court and the Supreme Justice Court received a case concerning the topic of censorship and whether who was enforcing censorship had the right. The Supreme Court heard a case that involved the principal’s censorship of their school newspaper. One of the school editors of the newspaper, Leslis E. Edwards, wanted to publish an article about teen-pregnancy and said that the principal cannot censor the newspaper “because they did not like their “viewpoint” ” (Taylor 2). Now the former Justice Scalia put into words "You leave us with a terrible choice: either no newspaper at all or newspaper that have to be offensive" (Taylor 4). ). It was argued that the school newspaper was extracurricular activity

“Imagine a world without free knowledge.” That was the quote on Wikipedia’s front page on Wednesday, January 18th. . The information-hosting online encyclopedia shut down all of the articles and information on the website, presenting only a black screen and a stark situation to the world for a full twenty-four hours. Why would Wikipedia, an online giant, shut down their website? The consequences are huge, a loss of much-solicited donations to the company and advertising money. The answer is simple. What Wikipedia is trying to do is raise awareness about two bills: the Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect IP Act, or SOPA and PIPA (Wikipedia, “Stop Online Piracy Act, Protect IP Act”). Soon after Wikipedia, other websites joined in the

According the decision of the court, all states are not allowed to “restrain by injunction the business of publishing and circulating among the people malicious, scandalous and defamatory periodicals” as it is in direct violation of the concept of freedom of the press. Thus censoring is unconstitutional as it takes away our freedom to freely voice and express our opinions and manipulates the recognized definition of the word liberty.