Should the Public Airwaves be More or Less Censored?

between your wiki, and my government and constitutional law classes... who do you really think has a better idea of what the law says?

I have taken a look at how Freedom of Speech originated. I spent a semester in law school on it. Your understanding of the First Amendment is seriously flawed and completely wrong.First, Regina v. Hicklin, 1868. L. R. 3 Q. B. 360, as your quote from Wiki makes clear, is a British case from 1868 which says absolutely nothing about U.S. Constitutional Law, and is explicitly rejected in Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957), and described as "discredited" in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 33 (1973). There are many, many other U.S. Supreme Court decisions, as well as from other courts, that stand in direct opposition to the proposition apparently set forth by Hicklin.Perhaps no single case does a better job of showing how wrong you are, and explains with extraordinary clarity why, than Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971). Paul Robert Cohen was convicted of violating California Penal Code 415 which prohibited "maliciously and willfully disturb[ing] the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or person . . . by . . . offensive conduct . . . ." after wearing a jacket upon which he had written the words "Fuck the Draft." Id. at 16.Mr. Justice Harlan wrote the opinion of the Court reversing his conviction on First Amendment grounds. The opinion includes the following passage:

quote:

---

At the outset, we cannot overemphasize that, in our judgment, most situations where the State has a justifiable interest in regulating speech will fall within one or more of the various established exceptions, discussed above but not applicable here, to the usual rule that governmental bodies may not prescribe the form or content of individual expression. Equally important to our conclusion is the constitutional backdrop against which our decision must be made. The constitutional right of free expression is powerful medicine in a society as diverse and populous as ours. It is designed and intended to remove governmental restraints from the arena of public discussion, putting the decision as to what views shall be voiced largely into the hands of each of us, in the hope that use of such freedom will ultimately produce a more capable citizenry and more perfect polity and in the belief that no other approach would comport with the premise of individual dignity and choice upon which our political system rests. See Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 375-377 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring).

​

To many, the immediate consequence of this freedom may often appear to be only verbal tumult, discord, and even offensive utterance. These are, however, within established limits, in truth necessary side effects of the broader enduring values which the process of open debate permits us to achieve. That the air may at times seem filled with verbal cacophony is, in this sense not a sign of weakness but of strength. We cannot lose sight of the fact that, in what otherwise might seem a trifling and annoying instance of individual distasteful abuse of a privilege, these fundamental societal values are truly implicated. That is why "wholly neutral futilities . . . come under the protection of free speech as fully as do Keats' poems or Donne's sermons," Winters v. New York, 333 U.S. 507, 528 (1948) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting), and why "so long as the means are peaceful, the communication need not meet standards of acceptability," Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415, 419 (1971).

​

Against this perception of the constitutional policies involved, we discern certain more particularized considerations that peculiarly call for reversal of this conviction. First, the principle contended for by the State seems inherently boundless. How is one to distinguish this from any other offensive word? Surely the State has no right to cleanse public debate to the point where it is grammatically palatable to the most squeamish among us. Yet no readily ascertainable general principle exists for stopping short of that result were we to affirm the judgment below. For, while the particular four-letter word being litigated here is perhaps more distasteful than most others of its genre, it is nevertheless often true that one man's vulgarity is another's lyric. Indeed, we think it is largely because governmental officials cannot make principled distinctions in this area that the Constitution leaves matters of taste and style so largely to the individual.

​

Additionally, we cannot overlook the fact, because it is well illustrated by the episode involved here, that much linguistic expression serves a dual communicative function: it conveys not only ideas capable of relatively precise, detached explication, but otherwise inexpressible emotions as well. In fact, words are often chosen as much for their emotive as their cognitive force. We cannot sanction the view that the Constitution, while solicitous of the cognitive content of individual speech, has little or no regard for that emotive function which, practically speaking, may often be the more important element of the overall message sought to be communicated. Indeed, as Mr. Justice Frankfurter has said, "one of the prerogatives of American citizenship is the right to criticize public men and measures--and that means not only informed and responsible criticism but the freedom to speak foolishly and without moderation." Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665, 673-674 (1944).

​

Finally, and in the same vein, we cannot indulge the facile assumption that one can forbid particular words without also running a substantial risk of suppressing ideas in the process. Indeed, governments might soon seize upon the censorship of particular words as a convenient guise for banning the expression of unpopular views. We have been able, as noted above, to discern little social benefit that might result from running the risk of opening the door to such grave results.

---

Nothing in the First Amendment limits Freedom of Speech to speaking out against the government. Nothing in Cohen provides support for such a limitation.The closest you come to anything approaching the truth is mentioning, but not explaining, Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973). Miller is an obscenity case, which holds that certain works can be prohibited consistent with the First Amendment if they meet a three-part test. That test is: (1) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (2) the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law; and (3) the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.I fail to see how this test helps advance your position that anything offensive can be banned, but perhaps you can explain.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

Sorry brenna, freedom of speech doen't give you the right to offend people.

---

No, that is exactly what the US Constitution protects.Speech that doesn't offend people doesn't need protecting. I am not sure why you posted your wiki link, but it doesn't support your statment.Please answer the questions at the end of the following example:If you don't like what is on TV, and you don't care to or cannot control what your children watch, then your only other option is to turn it off or get rid of it.Let's say there was an exhibit at the local art museum of an artist who painted nudes. Somebody in town didn't like it because they felt it was inappropriate for children, even though there was no mystery about the nature of the exhibit and there were plenty of signs and information outside the exhibit. That person decides to lobby the government to never allow nude paintings to be displayed in that museum ever again.How is that reasonable? Isn't it more reasonable to simply allow parents to decide if an exhibit is appropriate for their children or not rather than make the exhibit unavailable for everyone?Why does this person think they have the right to decide for everybody else?

That sounds like judicial activism to me. Try pulling a "spirit of the law" argument on any NRA member and see how far you get.Anyway...on the TV censorship...My sister and her 4 year old daughter were watching the Lawrence Welk Show on PBS, at the end of one of the acts, they hit someone in the face with a pie. My niece was quite shaken by the violence and didn't understand why people would do that kind of mean thing someone. But my sister was there to comfort my niece and explain the situtation, and I don't think anyone will need therapy from this traumatic event.So to what level do you censor the shows or commercials? How much do you "protect" the audience from the TV shows? In your case, you were watching a live basketball game, you have no idea what might occur during the game.I would suggest writing ABC and telling them what you think...power to the people in this matter. Don't let the government have any say what so ever. Let the all powerful "free market" force ABC to change their ways, if enough people feel the way you do, it'll happen, if not, then maybe you are over reacting a bit.~MINI

---

I mean, this is America. Everybody loves seeing lesbians go at it, as long as they are both hot and not in a monogamous, legally sanctioned relationship.

Pefect. I assure you, in the pilot episode of "Eliza Dushku Has Sex With Kristen Bell", absolutely nothing will be faked. I'm glad you don't want it censored.I can't promise they won't start phoning it in after a season or two, though. My legal inability to offend you hurts me, and I wish to speak out against this government policy through action, by offending you. Thanks for your support. I'm responding to this post instead of the one you addressed to me, because all that post said was "read a couple posts back about the hicklin test." And here, all you've done is cut and paste the Wikipedia entry that describes the Hicklin test. I see you've been a busy googler.But not quite busy enough, or you'd know that the Hicklin test was overturned fifty years ago. Perhaps, when explaining why the FCC should have the authority to censor content, (which you still haven't done), we could stick to laws that are actually on the books, and were not struck down in 1957? If you're that worried, don't own a TV. As I understand it, nobody held you at gunpoint, brought you to Circuit City, forced a TV into your hands, brought you home again, plugged in the TV, turned it on, and rigged a bomb to it so that if you try to shut it off, your house will explode.In other words, nobody's forcing you. Being a hypocrite is not the same as being in the middle. Common mistake.

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

you turn the tv off. not just then, all the time. it works for me. i control what i expose myself to and when. i watch dvds sometimes and i rarely go to the movies. i read, i listen to music, i don't expose myself to commercials. there's these amazing things called books... except you'd probably want to censor those too, in case the kids aren't supervised at the library...

Before Desparate Housewives there was the Sears catalogue.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Three years ago I felt that my son and I were watching too much TV. A lot of it was news, nature shows and science shows but when I stopped to think about it I realized that in the better science shows on TV there was about 5 minutes of pretty good content. I'd find myself watching the same news 3 times in an evening and not learning all that much about the subject.I cut off the cable and the TV is only on for watching DVD while I iron now or my son and his friends rent one or play a video game. It sits dark for days at a time.At first we missed it and I'd eagerly watch some when I went to visit my parents. Now we really don't care except for some particular show about once every 2 or 3 months.There doesn't seem to be any value in it at all.

it's just a waste of time and a way for them to sell you stuff.

The Simpsons, Family Guy, Futurama!?No value!? Enough of the blasphemy, Ned. Just kidding But seriously, other than those outrageously hilarious cartoons, all I really watch is non-fiction/educational programs on the three stoner channels: National Geographic, The History Channel, and Animal Planet.I think that those have some value. At least I can learn something from them. But otherwise, you're pretty much right. TV is lame.

---

ABE: forgot to respond to this point I find them to be a little better than you give them credit for. There is also The Science Channel, much like The History Channel. It seems to have more of the better progams that National Geographic, which is the science programs I assume you're typing about, and I can agree that a lot of those get pretty bad.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see abe

Just as an aside, one value TV has is that by using closed-captioning, it helped teach my daughter how to read. Before she started kindergarten, every time I sat down to watch, the captioning was on.

quote:

---

Before Desparate Housewives there was the Sears catalogue.

---

...and National Geographic.

OK, so the problem appears to be that you are unhappy that commercial messages may contain sexual or violent content that is unexpected while watching a basketball game. One could argue that organized sports itself glamorizes violence and I'm not too sure about professional wrestling, either.Apparently you feel that commercials should adhere to the same level as the show being broadcast in regards to sexual or violent content.I feel this is not an entirely unreasonable expectation, but would have to see the commercials in question to determine if such content was that dramatically over the line.However, another message I am getting is that because you object to some content in fiction, all people who utilize the public airwaves should be subject to your standards of decency. Obviously, I object to this for the reasons mentioned that you have in your power to control including turning the set off, getting rid of the TV, or even blocking objectionable channels.As far as I am concerned, public airwaves should be allowed to show anything at all, including X-rated movies, with the restriction that such channels with unlimited content are easily blocked to take account of some viewers sensitivities.Also, in raising my daughter who is now 15, I did not generally limit what she could watch including R-rated movies at 5 or even younger provided we watched them together so that they could be discussed.I do not see the point in being overprotective as knowledge helps one to survive and thrive in this society better than innocence and ignorance.If you feel that my daughter has been damaged by such a philosophy, you may discuss this matter with her yourself as she is a member of this forum under the alias Beatle_Addict.

How the hell would I know?Why don't you take it up with wiki, there is a discussion forum attached to the definitions that you can participate in, if you feel they are wrong.

I think how you interpretated what I said is completely wrong.All I said was that freedom of speech does not give you the right to offend people. Am I wrong in saying this?How you determine if something is offensive is relative, that is why there is the hicklin test. I never said there was, that would be contradictory.Freedom of speech was made so that people CAN speak out against the governement, wasn't that what I said?

quote:

---

it was originated so that people make{ABE may} legally speak out against government, and things in general that were hurting them.

---

Just because I mentioned that is where it orginated from, doesn't mean it is limited to that. But it is the spirit in which it was created.To me, freedom of speech does not give you permission to a free for all, and I think the law would agree. Again, it doesn't give you the right to offend people.