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.



According to the U.S. Department of Justice, “Obscenity is not protected under First Amendment Rights of Free Speech, and violations of federal obscenity laws are criminal offenses.’ The problem is that such standards change so quickly that any sincere attempt to figure them out is an exercise in frustration.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in our courts. Decisions such as Roth v. United States (1957) have tried to justify and preserve the obscenity exception by defining it as anything that's “utterly without redeeming social importance.” This and other variations, have employed such concepts without bothering to ask what constitutes redeeming social importance or community standards. Who gets to choose these standards? It’s as if, rather than admitting that they’ve set themselves up as arbiters of decency, our learned judges are using the undefined “they.”

Over the years such standards have led to the banning of many classics, including James Joyce’s Ulysses and J. D. Salinger’s Catcher in the Rye. More limited definitions of obscenity in recent court decisions are no guarantees that self-appointed guardians of morality won’t look for other means of curtailing free speech, or that “hate speech” won’t become the new scarlet letter of censorship.

So, somebody with legislative or judicial authority decides to ban certain expressions because they find them repugnant. Yet, the First Amendment never mentions obscenity. The obscenity exception relies entirely on notions outside the Constitution, which is supposedly the foundation of our government.

The wording of the First Amendment, though it only applies to acts of Congress, is clear. It applies to offensive language not in spite of, but precisely because of its potential to offend. The founders of this country were all too familiar with the tendency of those in power to interpret decency to mean whatever they wished.

The Bill of Rights exists for the purpose of protecting us from our own government. Defending and maintaining it is our job, both at the polls and in the media.

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Scant Coverage of Women’s Sports Creates Unequal Opportunity

Image
  Since Title IX’s inclusion in the federal Education Amendments of 1972 , participation in sports among school-age girls has increased from one in 27 to one in three. This has led to increased enrollment by women in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) and greater career opportunities . Media coverage, however, has not kept up. As any fan knows, ESPN is the powerhouse of sports coverage, yet a study by Purdue’s Cheryl Cooky found that Sports Center coverage of women’s athletics increased to a mere 5.4% of airtime in 2019 from 5% in 1989. Lack of coverage, in turn, has accompanied  lower pay for female athletes , compared to their male counterparts. This has happened despite a growing number of female role models in sports, which according to a BBC study helps in the development of women’s attitudes toward personal health. Fortunately, we have such brave souls as Megan Rapinoe and her teammates, who in a landmark decision, won an equal pay settlement in t...
Read more

Napster Killed the Video Star

Image
  As an author, I can personally attest to the importance of intellectual property protection. Writers, artists, musicians, tech companies, fashion designers, news media, anyone who creates for mass consumption, we all depend on it,. From foreign counterfeiting to illegal downloading and copying of music , creative works are under attack now more than ever. Artists must protect themselves, and individuals must be wary of breaking the law. Technology is only making matters worse. While Napster lost its argument that it was merely a music sharing service , the damage it did endures. YouTube and other social media have long claimed immunity to intellectual property litigation but may soon find themselves accountable for allowing posting of infringed materials . At the same time unravelling infringement claims is becoming increasingly difficult. The severity of this matter and its spiraling economic and cultural toll are impossible to overstate. Learning to respect others creati...
Read more

Commitment to Truth – The Ethics of Coming Clean

Image
  According to the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics , journalists should “ Take responsibility for the accuracy of their work. Verify information before releasing it. Use original sources whenever possible.  Journalists must also   “ remember that neither speed nor format excuses inaccuracy.”   On Jan. 6, 2012 “This American Life” (TAL) released a story titled Mr. Daisey and the Apple Factory , Mike Daisey’s allegedly first-hand account of working conditions at the factories of Taiwan-based Hon Hai Precision Co., Ltd, trading as Foxconn Technology Group . Foxconn manufactures iPads under license with Apple . “This American Life” is a broadcast of WBEZ Chicago . Daisey’s story became TAL’s most downloaded recording. Prior to releasing Daisey’s audio report, “This American Life” fact-checked it, verifying that Daisey’s statements about Foxconn’s relationship with Apple were correct. They did not validate Daisey’s story with his onsite translator,...
Read more