Do We Really Live in a Free Society?
April 9, 2006The First Amendment has to be one of the most controversial topics that we see so why isn’t it clearly defined? Americans seem so soft in their reasoning behind regulating free speech. We have seen many cases that has changed or regulated our current free speech, when will it end? This “free” country is supposed to be a place where people can express their mind but they can’t to their fullest potential because of things like libel and obscenity.
The First Amendment should protect all speech rights and all its counterparts. When Dr. Halavais made the point of Pee Wee Herman engaging in already made child porn, why shouldn’t the 1st Amendment protect him? To me, Dr. Halavais, was not wrong or weird. He was right; why not protect the people with the freedom of speech? What we, as a society should worry about is how child porn is being made? Where is the epicenter of the problem? We should worry about child molesters, child abusers and how people exploit children. Child porn should not be made in the first place. The people who see children as “sexy,” need help in their own way. Why not arrest people who have violent pornography on their computer? Isn’t that some type of violence towards women? Aren’t they watching a crime? Are we really living in the Big Brother society and have just enough freedom covering it up to say that we don’t?
Obscenity is another ambiguous topic of the constitution. Obscenity defined in court terms is a whole list of garbage that can be misconstrued and misused. What about Hug gee’s commercials or Johnson & Johnson commercials? They show naked children. According to the standards, why can’t these commercials be seen as obscene? Is it because they are not exploiting a child in a sexual manner? No, because the law says:
· Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.
· Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law.
· Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
Where is the scientific value? Where is the literary, political, or artistic value? What if I find those commercials patently offensive? Why aren’t these companies being prosecuted if we want to go by the court’s definition of obscenity? My point exactly which is what is obscene to one is not obscene to another. There cannot be a limit on something that is objective. The law should be prosecuting the people who make the films, people who are doing direct harm to the child and/or person.
Some Interesting Links
