Freedom of Speech
This is an excerpt from the paper...
Americans have long prized the freedom of speech assured them in the U.S. Constitution, yet they also seem to accept that there are some boundaries to freedom of speech, though what those boundaries are is controversial and may shift form one period of time to another. Freedom of speech as applied in the arts is often a source for arguments over limitations that may be placed on expression, especially with art works depicting sexual behavior, nudity, or subjects considered irreligious. Much of the debate takes place at the extremes, with absolute freedom of speech at one end and tight control and censorship at the other. While the answer likely lies somewhere in between these extremes, where one places the issue on a continuum depends on the rationale used for making such a decision. One extreme is represented by Plato, who found that censorship was acceptable precisely because he was making this decision in terms of his view of the importance of education and of the need to shape society around the education of the young, couched in terms of stories to be told to the young:: Then it seems that our first business is to supervise the production of stories, and choose only those we think suitable and reject the rest. We shall persuade mothers and nurses to tell our chosen stories to their children, and by means of them to mold their minds and characters which are more important than their bodies (Plato 628). Plato here indicates that the intent is to "persuade" rather t
. . .
three elements that had to coalesce: it had to be established that with reference to the work in question, a) the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appealed to the prurient interest in sex; b) the material is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards on the description or representation of sexual matters; and c) the material must be deemed utterly without redeeming social importance. Under the criteria set forth in Miller, the trier of fact is instructed by the court to imagine himself or herself as the average person applying contemporary community standards to the issue at hand, and the trier of fact is then given the task of deciding whether the material at issue "appeals to the prurient interest" and whether it is "patently offensive." The trier also decides another matter, though not on the community standards basis, and that is whether the material "taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." The trier of fact will have defined the material as either obscene or not for constitutional purposes. Material that is deemed obscene using this test is not protected by the First Amendment. Critchell notes that while the test implies that the tri
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Harlan Blackmun, , Roth United, Richard Goldstein, Mill Liberty, Irving Kristol, Burger Court, Amendment Critchell, Miller California, Hugo Bedau, freedom speech, boston bedford, boston bedford books, bedford books, questions sylvan barnet, enduring questions sylvan, questions sylvan, barnet hugo, sylvan barnet, current issues, hugo bedau, bedau eds, sylvan barnet hugo, barnet hugo bedau, issues enduring,
Approximate Word count = 1732
Approximate Pages = 7 (250 words per page)
More Essays on Freedom of Speech
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
