M4 Blog: Free Speech Limits
Type of document Essay
1 Page)
Subject area Political Science
Academic Level High School
Style MLA Number of references 3
Order description:
Of all the civil liberties, free speech regularly captures the attention of citizens, government leaders, and the media alike. It is not hard to find individuals who have very strong feelings on the subject, and a quick survey of the news reveals concerns over censorship, hate speech and public protest. All of these items fit neatly under the umbrella of the 1st Amendment and free speech.
In this blog, we are going to consider the limits of free speech.
Are you, like Justice Douglas or Black, an absolutist when it comes to protecting free speech? In other words, do you believe that the government has no right to ban any speech?
If you don’t fall into this line of argumentation, where do you draw the line? What types of speech are you simply unwilling to tolerate and would, if you could, empower the government to ban/punish?
To get the topic started, let’s start with an area certain to spark some debate. The topic is the existence of “crush videos.” Crush videos involve the recording of individuals (usually women) stepping on (crushing) animals. The creatures in question can range from insects to small rodents. In 1999, Congress passed a law to make these items illegal. In detailing the background and need for adopting this law, Congress stated that “Much of the material featured women inflicting the torture with their bare feet or while wearing high-heeled shoes… In some video depictions, the woman’s voice can be heard talking to the animals in a kind of dominatrix patter.” (Follow this link to read the entire bill.)
However, the Supreme Court held that the law was too broadly written to effectively prosecute individuals without trampling the 1st Amendment. Please read The New York Times story, “Justices Reject Ban on Videos of Animal Cruelty” for a full discussion on the matter.
Congress made an attempt to address the Court’s concerns, but legal challenges still exist. Specifically, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court became involved in overturning a lower district court judge’s ruling that the aforementioned actions could be protected. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case. You can read a brief story on the latest decision here.
As you consider this topic, imagine you were either a member of Congress or a sitting judge who had to take action on this matter.
How would you vote?
Do you support the law or would you side with the Court on the topic?
To frame the topic a bit broader, are you in favor of banning (criminalizing) videos of people hunting animals? Fishing? Bull-fighting? What makes them different? Remember that in the case of the crush videos, we are not talking about the legality of the person in the video, but rather the individual who has such a video in their possession.
For your blog entry, you don’t need to address the matter of crush videos, but rather consider a topic where you might draw the line for free speech protection.
What types of things are, in your mind, out of bounds? Why?
As you think about free speech and different statements and expressions that seem to push the boundaries of where we might draw lines for regulation, I think it is worth considering some real world examples. Here is one that was on television and caused considerable backlash.
In 1992, Sinead O’Connor gave a musical performance on Saturday Night Live (SNL) and sang Bob Marley’s song “War” (Time: 3:14; closed caption available). with some modifications, to protest sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. At the very end of the song, she held up a picture of the Pope John Paul II and after singing the word “evil”, she extolled the audience to “Fight the real enemy” and ripped the picture into pieces.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) did not fine SNL for producing this piece and showing it again unedited when it was aired on the West coast. In subsequent releases, the rehearsal performance was substituted.
If you were producing the show, what actions would you have taken?
Is her action simply a matter of taste and not something that needs to be censored?
Does the government have any power to limit the broadcast of such images/actions or is it purely a company (NBC) decision?
