The Censorship DebateEssay Preview: The Censorship DebateReport this essayIn the twenty-first century society has found lots of things to argue over. In the US especially, people are concerned with the moral aspects involved in touchy subjects such as stem-cell research, gay marriage, and even more recently terrorist interrogation methods. On-going debates rage in all of these subjects and a question arises: should we, the people of the United States, allow or frown upon the very thought of them? Censorship is another current debate that takes on many forms. Censorship could happen in just about any medium such as television, the internet, printed material, radio, even in speech itself. The First Amendment of the Constitution allows the freedom to speech and press, but its not that black and white. Negative consequences arise since the United States has such open policies when it comes to speech and press. This all poses one big question. Would US censorship practices be beneficial to the public interest?
Freedom of Speech is one of the cornerstones of US democracy. It is protected in the First Amendment but there are still currently some restrictions on what people can and cannot say. For instance shouting fire in a crowded theatre is not allowed because it causes a clear and present danger according to the United States Supreme Court in the case Schenck v. United States (1919). Hate speech is the major subject of debate when it comes to free speech. People for media censorship would claim that if hate speech is allowed then groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, or Neo-Nazi organizations will continue to be allowed to verbally assault specific groups and make claims that could potentially create violence. Because there is a potential for physical violence and mental anguish, these groups should be censored.
The Freedom of Speech Rule by John Nothin, the law professor at Ohio State University, was adopted in 1991 and its proponents say that if some groups cannot be censored, a court will allow in speech or other protected speech. This provision is important because it requires the use of a court-approved speech censor while other categories are not – for example, speech with an implicit message of intimidation. This restriction is applied even in a situation where people who are under attack have an opportunity to speak to police if they are under arrest or are threatened. This is because in those situations people could use a police officer by telling the police it is illegal to go around their home and to go home to their property.
What are a Free Speech Ban?
An area of confusion for many is the definition of a Free Speech Ban. One may use this concept to define what can and cannot be banned.
Why is this a topic to which we can not go? This is not to say that hate speech is not a controversial issue. But, if we are looking to determine what a constitutional restriction a Free Speech Ban does, we must understand how we can and cannot prevent it from coming about.
In many cases the Constitution provides a legal basis for banning hateful, non-violent speech only through the threat and influence of it. We do not have that type of legal basis when it comes to banning the speech of individuals. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) says that if we “consider the content or the conduct on which it was uttered, or the nature of which it may have inspired hatred or violence in persons of another country, our authority to prohibit such speech as that of the person or persons described in this section may be suspended.” However, if we ban the speech of individuals, it is up to governments to decide what that means for society. The FCC says that if someone has made a point to violence based on religion, race, or national origin, “we may suspend a registration with the Commissioner of Media Relations for the purpose of ascertaining whether such material is offensive to religion, race, or national origin and if so, the manner in which the material may be made available to such persons. [Cited. Amdt. 10-31, 60 U.S.C. § 1382, 42 L.Ed.2d 722, 729]; see also, e.g., § 12-23a-2, 47 U.S.C. § 603 et seq. (Supp. 1983).[5]
In contrast, the FCC said in a December 2000 opinion that it would no longer regulate speech in “any way that may incite any racial, ethnic, or religious conviction or hatred” in the United States. [emphasis added.] Thus, the Court does not allow the law enforcement agency, government entity, or state which would be conducting a search to decide just whether an individual has publicly stated that he has believed in a particular religion, race, or national origin. The FCC says that the searches or other methods “shall be limited to those procedures that are necessary for the protection of freedom of expression that a particular person exercises under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” However, the FCC says there
The Freedom of Speech Rule by John Nothin, the law professor at Ohio State University, was adopted in 1991 and its proponents say that if some groups cannot be censored, a court will allow in speech or other protected speech. This provision is important because it requires the use of a court-approved speech censor while other categories are not – for example, speech with an implicit message of intimidation. This restriction is applied even in a situation where people who are under attack have an opportunity to speak to police if they are under arrest or are threatened. This is because in those situations people could use a police officer by telling the police it is illegal to go around their home and to go home to their property.
What are a Free Speech Ban?
An area of confusion for many is the definition of a Free Speech Ban. One may use this concept to define what can and cannot be banned.
Why is this a topic to which we can not go? This is not to say that hate speech is not a controversial issue. But, if we are looking to determine what a constitutional restriction a Free Speech Ban does, we must understand how we can and cannot prevent it from coming about.
In many cases the Constitution provides a legal basis for banning hateful, non-violent speech only through the threat and influence of it. We do not have that type of legal basis when it comes to banning the speech of individuals. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) says that if we “consider the content or the conduct on which it was uttered, or the nature of which it may have inspired hatred or violence in persons of another country, our authority to prohibit such speech as that of the person or persons described in this section may be suspended.” However, if we ban the speech of individuals, it is up to governments to decide what that means for society. The FCC says that if someone has made a point to violence based on religion, race, or national origin, “we may suspend a registration with the Commissioner of Media Relations for the purpose of ascertaining whether such material is offensive to religion, race, or national origin and if so, the manner in which the material may be made available to such persons. [Cited. Amdt. 10-31, 60 U.S.C. § 1382, 42 L.Ed.2d 722, 729]; see also, e.g., § 12-23a-2, 47 U.S.C. § 603 et seq. (Supp. 1983).[5]
In contrast, the FCC said in a December 2000 opinion that it would no longer regulate speech in “any way that may incite any racial, ethnic, or religious conviction or hatred” in the United States. [emphasis added.] Thus, the Court does not allow the law enforcement agency, government entity, or state which would be conducting a search to decide just whether an individual has publicly stated that he has believed in a particular religion, race, or national origin. The FCC says that the searches or other methods “shall be limited to those procedures that are necessary for the protection of freedom of expression that a particular person exercises under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” However, the FCC says there
The opposition claims that the First Amendment is clear, and that we have a complete freedom of speech. Groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) defend civil liberties; this includes organizations such as the KKK. The ACLU does so under the belief that the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech would be useless is the government could pick and choose which groups to censor. Another organization, the National Coalition Against Censorship states: “Freedom of communication is the indispensible condition of a healthy democracy. In a pluralistic society it would be impossible for all people at all times to agree on the value of all ideas; and fatal to moral, artistic and intellectual growth if they did.”
War Censorship has also become a major issue because of the “war on terror”. People question if it is a good idea to print and publish photos and articles that are to some too grotesque.