The right to freely express who you are is a fundamental freedom for individuals provided and protected by the Bill of Rights. It is one of the most essential freedoms because it gives people the ability to express different ideas through art, political platforms, and sex. Unfortunately, free does not necessarily mean completely free. The government has the power to censor this freedom if the material, or action is considered to be indecent, or obscene to the average person. Even though there are logical reasons for restrictions, such as child pornography and “fighting words”. A judge has the power and authority to condemn a form of expression if he or she interrupts the material, and finds that it lacks serious social value. Old case law …show more content…
One of the first cases to question censorship and obscenity in films was the Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Commission of Ohio. This case started a chain reaction with cinema. Many films were banned from the theaters or destroyed. Samantha Barbas explained the case, “In its 1915 decision in Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court, upholding an Ohio film censorship law, held that motion pictures were not part of “the press of th[is] country” and were therefore unprotected by freedom of speech and press. Films were, as a medium, mere entertainment and visual “spectacles” with a powerful capacity to incite audiences to immoral behavior. (2011).” Many years, the film industry struggled with censorship and the lack of freedom in creativity. Fortunately for cinema, the landmark case Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson of 1952, the courts overturned the Mutual Film decision. Film is protected under the first amendment as art, not just entertainment. Until, once again, it came into question by a court in Albany, Georgia. The film “Carnal Knowledge” was considered to be obscene and patently offensive because it contained some nudity. The Albany court found the film to be obscene and too offensive show in the theaters. When the Supreme Court got the case, they conduced the Miller test to determine whether or not the film was obscene. The Supreme Court …show more content…
It can offend the public. It could be burning an America flag, wearing anti-war materiel, or even protesting at dead soldier’s funeral. One of the most controversial cases involving freedom of expression is Texas v. Johnson. The case brought up many difficult questions about political speech, and how far someone can go until it is considered to be “obscene”. Flag burning is a horrible act. It is offensive, not only to the Nation, but also to the many soldiers who died protecting what it stands for. Freedom. But what would that flag really stand for if Johnson could not freely exercise his right to express his political frustration? Charles Levendosky explained the court’s opinion, “The Supreme Court is nearly unanimous in accepting that flag burning in certain contexts expresses a message of dissent. Justice William Brennan who wrote for the majority in Texas vs. Johnson, stated, "If there is a bedrock of principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." (2002).” Even though the act is un-honorable and distasteful, it is comforting to know that American’s have the right to freely express political platforms without fear of the government. Like the Johnson case, the notorious Westboro Baptist Church protests the government in a distasteful manner at soldier’s funerals. The Westboro Baptist
Free speech and the First Amendment rights do not give people lisence to desecrate a symbol of pride and freedom. It is not all right to protect those who let it burn, lighting up the sky with their hatred. It definitely is not acceptable to insult the men and women who fight every day to protect this nation by burning the symbol of their labors. Therefore, it is crucial that the Supreme Court pass the amendment to the Constitution to protect the flag of the US.
There have been many Supreme Court cases that dealed with many concepts of the law, like obscenity for example. As a matter of fact, obscenity is a concept that Miller v. California deals with. To be more specific, this case deals with what is considered obscene, and if the specific obscenity mentioned in this case is protected by the first amendment, the freedom of speech. I will now explain this case in more depth.
Is the upholding of the American flag as a symbol of the United States more important than the freedom of speech provided by the First Amendment? Are there certain freedoms of expression that are not protected under the First Amendment and if so what qualifies as freedom of speech and expression and what does not? The Supreme Court case of Texas v. Johnson proves that the First Amendment and the freedom of speech are not limited to that of spoken and written word, but also extended to symbolic speech as well. Texas v. Johnson is a case in which the interpretation of the First Amendment rights is at the top of the argument. This case discusses the issue of flag burning as a desecration of national unity and that the flag of the United States should be protected under a law. Texas v. Johnson expanded the rights of symbolic speech and freedom of expression under the First Amendment and was presented as a precedence for future cases along with influencing the final decision on the revision of
In the First Amendment it 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.” Although some argued that the right to burn the American flag is fundamental to the First Amendment
Freedom of speech has been a controversial issue throughout the world. Our ability to say whatever we want is very important to us as individuals and communities. Although freedom of speech and expression may sometimes be offensive to other people, it is still everyone’s right to express his/her opinion under the American constitution which 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 the press”. Although this amendment gave people the right express thier opinions, it still rests in one’s own hands as how far they will go to exercise that right of freedom of speech.
Much history came within the Texas v. Johnson case. It all started during the 1984 Republican National Convention, this is where Johnson participated in a political demonstration to protest what policies Regan was administrating (Brennan 1). A march was occurring throughout the city streets, which Johnson did take part in. Johnson burned an American flag while protesters chanted him on (Brennan 1). No person was specifically injured during this protest; although, many witnesses were severely offended (Brennan 1). Johnson was convicted of Desecration of a venerated object, which violated the Texas Statue. The state court of appeals affirmed Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and reversed the case stating it was a form of expressive conduct, so it was alright (Brennan 1). In a 5 to 4 decision the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that Johnson’s burning of the flag was protected under his First Amendment rights (Brennan 1). The court also found that although witnesses may have found it offensive, does not...
Freedom of speech and expression is a right given to all Americans under the First Amendment of the Constitution. It is a difficult concept to embrace when individuals are faced with ideas they oppose. In this kind of situation, the protection guaranteed to American citizens becomes even more important. The First Amendment was designed not only to protect the freedom to express ideas and sentiments with which one agrees, but also the ideas and sentiments with which one disagrees. It is for precisely this reason that the government should maintain the right of individuals to express their dissatisfaction with the policies of the government through the act of flag burning and not amend the Constitution to make such an act illegal.
Flag Burning can be and usually is a very controversial issue. Many people are offended by the thought of destroying this country's symbol of liberty and freedom. During a political protest during the 1984 Republican Convention, Gregory Lee Johnson was arrested for burning an American flag. Years later in 1989, Johnson got the decision overturned by the United States Supreme Court. In the same year, the state of Texas passed the Flag Protection Act, which prohibited any form of desecration against the American flag. This act provoked many people to protest and burn flags anyway. Two protestors, Shawn Eichman and Mark Haggerty were charged with violating the law and arrested. Both Eichman and Haggerty appealed the decision because the law was inconsistent with the first amendment to the Constitution. The right to petition the government for a redress of grievances is protected by the first amendment of the Constitution. Burning American flags and other such actions are not treasonous and should no be treated as so, as long as these actions are done to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
This is indeed a touchy subject. This particular court case is one that has sparked a great deal of debate and one that requires some understanding of Miller v. California and New York v. Farber. Two semesters ago, my Media Law class spent a little time reviewing each of these cases plus the one we are discussing and even after doing so, I still find this ruling a bit disturbing.
"Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus” by Derek Bok, published in Boston Globe in 1991, is an essay about what we should do when we are faced with expressions that are offensive to some people. The author discusses that although the First Amendment may protect our speech, but that does not mean it protects our speech if we use it immorally and inappropriately. The author claims that when people do things such as hanging the Confederate flag, “they would upset many fellow students and ignore the decent regard for the feelings of others” (70). The author discusses how this issue has approached Supreme Court and how the Supreme Court backs up the First Amendment and if it offends any groups, it does not affect the fact that everyone has his or her own freedom of speech. The author discusses how censorship may not be the way to go, because it might bring unwanted attention that would only make more devastating situations. The author believes the best solutions to these kind of situations would be to
Pornography is considered by many to be an unwelcome and distasteful part of our society. However, I argue that it is necessary to voice the unpopular viewpoints, under the Constitution. This paper is a defense of pornography as a constitutional right of free expression, under the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. In illustrating this argument, I will first define pornography as a concept, and then address central arguments in favor of pornography remaining legal and relatively unregulated – such as the development of the pornography debate throughout modern US law, and how activist groups address the censorship of adult entertainment.
Exercising the freedom of speech has two sides: the speaker and the listener. Censorship is unfair to both sides. When it takes away the speaker’s Constitutional freedom of expression, it simultaneously revokes the listener’s right to develop an informed opinion based on unobstructed truth. This opinion has been supported by the courts. In 1982, an informal agreement between several broadcasters from major media outlets known as the Code of Broadcaster Conduct, which banned “depictions of sexual encounters, violence and drug use, as well as excessive advertising,” was nullified because it was a violation of First Amendment rights (“Broadcast Decency”). Excessive censorship is viewed as unnecessary by both the American public and by the government that endorses it.
Flag burning is not right, but making it illegal takes away from the freedom of speech which turns it more into a religion than a symbol according to Mr. Levendosky. “In the following viewpoint, Levendosky argues that burning the American flag is a form of political
Kieran, M. (2008, January 28). Art, censorship and morality. Open Learn, the Open University. Retrieved January 5, 2014 from http://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/culture/philosophy/art-censorship-and-morality
Ever wondered the reason behind racial discrimination, sexual discrimination, children committing crime or violence? The main reason is that censorship is not properly imposed or there is a need of censorship in the society. Censorship is the suppression of ideas and information that certain people, individual, groups or government officials find it objectionable, offensive or dangerous on others. There are varieties of other definitions but all have in common the concept of withholding information and/or resources from those who seek it. Hence censorship is essential in society to eliminate discrimination on basis of race and sex, protect children, maintain stability and restore what censor sees as lost moral values. Censorship occurs when expressive materials like books, magazines, movies, videos, music or work of art are restricted to particular audiences based on their age or other characteristics. (http://www.ala.org/oif/intellectualfreedeomandcensorship.html)