Should all forms of expression be allowed?
if sp, how do we make that determination? is pornography indecent? what would be the benefits of banning so-called indecent material. are there any negative aspects to censorship? why would we expect the government to intervene in issues that seem to be personal and private?
Answers:
No. Not all forms of expression should be allowed.
Those which are harmful to society or individuals should be restricted.
Taken to the absurd, if I were to express my dislike for a person by killing them, it would not be a protected form of expression.
Likewise, if someone shouts "fire" in a crowded theatre, it is a form of expression which will damage the society of the theatre, and could again hurt poeple.
When we get to pornography in its many forms, we end up in a constantly moving grey area. The expression is indeed protected to some extent, but when it is deemed to be some hazard to society, or raises objection beyond some point, or causes or promotes damage to a particular segment of society, then it is typically regulated.
Lets look at one example here. At one point the NAMBLA magazine was available on newstands all over. Those who bought it, bought it. Those who didn't, didn't. As we became more aware of pedophilia, it was recognized that this magazine was promoting it, and it was pulled. The NAMBLA groups who met at libraries and such were chased out. (for those who are not of the right vintage, NAMBLA was the North American Man Boy Love Association). Now, folks are actively pursuing pedophiles, chasing them out of state, and suing those who employed theim. For many years before, it was just taken as a sorrid fact of life. It was only when consciousness changed that the grey area moved to the other side of the issue.
There are both positive and negative aspects of censorship. On the positive side, it prevents society from being exposed or overexposed to certain ills. It also allows in some cases more details to be given than would otherwise be possible. On example is that when pornographic magazines are placed where only actively consenting adults see them, they are able to deal with more topics and be more explicit than if they were placed on display at the grocery checkout.
There are other positive sides to it. Hatemongers often find themselves being censored. This protects society from the acts of those who are incited by the hatemongers. It also can protect those who are unable to critically think things out from that path of life.
The basic rule for censorship is that if something is objectionable to society as a whole, promotes or exploits the harm or injury to anyone or to society, demeans a class of people, or which compromises the security of the nation, then it should be employed. In most other cases, censorship can be counterproductive to the operation of society.
no they shouldn't...just because you want to expose one thing because you don't find it detrimental...doesn't mean you have a right to push it on others...in your home...do what you want...once the innocence of person is taken away...it can never be returned...is that for you to decide...
NO. I don't think so.
Child pornography is one example I can think of that should never be acceptable, EVER.
I also think US soldier effigy burning is disgraceful and if the government won't step in on it the American people should.
There are lots of other examples that I am less strict on. (Flag Burning) but those two I don't think should ever be acceptable forms of "Free Speech"
I dont think porno is appropiate, but it shouldnt be censored. Nothing should be. Because they start with porno, they call it indecent, and no one argues that. But then it grows - they start to suppress or freedom of speech, claiming that its indecent. Thats how totalitarian governments start off.
Anyways, if your talking about american tv censorship, its completely ridiculous. Aside from free speech, how is it that they can show people being decapitated but they cant show a womens breasts? :0
In general, censorship is regarded as evil, as the freedom of the press in the Bill of Rights is intended to foster the most widespread information. The courts have held that porn does not serve any useful purpose, so has permitted it to be limited. (Users might disagree.) Free speech also does not extend to speech which is intended to violate the public peace, such as inciting a riot or yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire.
Well, you have a lot of aspects to your question. I believe that censorship is basically wrong, but at the same time I think there need to be some kind of restraint on misuse of the press or the airwaves. Tabloid journalism, for one thing, such as The Enquirer, or Fox News, are a very bad influence on impressionable minds, and I think they should be stopped. The same thing with people who play hip-hop and rap music from their cars at levels that can be heard for blocks. They seem to think it's cool to drive through quiet neighborhoods at night blasting that stuff so loud you can't hear your own TV from 5 feet away. It's simply wrong, but when you try to challenge them on it, or restrict them from doing it, they all hue and cry about how "my freedom of expression is being violated."
Same thing with pornography. I have no problem with people enjoying porn in their home, and even in some cases publicly, such as simple nudity in advertising, like in Europe. For example, I don't think it makes any sense in America to run an ad for a shower product that shows a man or woman wearing a bathing suit in the shower, while in Europe they are shown Au Natural, which is as it should be. Or, the scene in The Coca-Cola Kid, where there is a mother taking a shower with her 5-year old daughter. There was full nudity with them both, as the mother is towelling the child dry. Nothing immoral or pornographic about it. But, here in the U.S., they tried to ban the film as being "indecent." That's just sick. But, that doesn't mean I want to see a couple having actual sex on a billboard, though. I don't think it's immoral, just in poor taste.
But, no, I don't think the government has any place in censoring what we should be able to see or read, if we want to.
Remember, if you don't like it, you are free to change the channel. Just don't pass laws that say I can't enjoy it if I want to.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers: