Graalians - View Single Post

Skill · 07-13-2013

Does anyone feel like the United States truly has complete freedom of speech? I personally feel like while there is a lot more freedom of expression and speech than some other countries, it is still limited and not as free as people believe.

The first amendment has been broken countless times in the past and probably will be broken again in the future. During wartime the government has frequently silenced the press and even arrested people for speaking out against the war such as during the civil war and World War 1. While the censorship may have been necessary for success, I still feel like this helps prove that "freedom of speech" is only available when the government allows it, and for what they allow freedom of.

Additionally, there are multiple exceptions to freedom of speech-many things are not protected by the 1st amendment. For example, "Obscene" content is considered unprotected by the 1st amendment. The issue with this is that material is deemed obscene by whatever the prevalent opinion of the population considers it to be. For more information as to how something is declared legally obscene, read this:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscenity,(warning contains some NSFW pictures)This honestly does not feel like freedom at all, as people who happen to find something offensive can get it banned if the majority agree that it lacks value. For example, if I wrote a book that contained violence described in a way detailed or disturbing enough to get a reaction out of people, I could be thrown in jail/fined because the book lacks"serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." as considered by the population. Now I'd probably have to make it have some seriously morally corrupt situations or something to actually cause people to care and try to ban it, but it still proves a point. Freedom of Expression can be censored if people consider it obscene, which in my opinion defeats the purpose of it. Suppose people were a lot more sensitive than they are now, theoretically every form of videogame violence could be declared obscene and banned if people decided so. If the majority of people considered it lacking in "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value", then it can indeed be banned and possession or distribution of it could be punishable by law. I honestly do not think obscenity laws are constitutional, they limit freedom of expression and serve little purpose. I don't mind when people have to put warning on things with somewhat obscene content like moving ratings and videogame age ratings, but banning the possession or distribution of things declared too obscene is downright censorship.

07-13-2013	1
Skill The Unwanted Critic Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 3,639	Freedom of Speech In The United States Does anyone feel like the United States truly has complete freedom of speech? I personally feel like while there is a lot more freedom of expression and speech than some other countries, it is still limited and not as free as people believe. The first amendment has been broken countless times in the past and probably will be broken again in the future. During wartime the government has frequently silenced the press and even arrested people for speaking out against the war such as during the civil war and World War 1. While the censorship may have been necessary for success, I still feel like this helps prove that "freedom of speech" is only available when the government allows it, and for what they allow freedom of. Additionally, there are multiple exceptions to freedom of speech-many things are not protected by the 1st amendment. For example, "Obscene" content is considered unprotected by the 1st amendment. The issue with this is that material is deemed obscene by whatever the prevalent opinion of the population considers it to be. For more information as to how something is declared legally obscene, read this:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscenity,(warning contains some NSFW pictures)This honestly does not feel like freedom at all, as people who happen to find something offensive can get it banned if the majority agree that it lacks value. For example, if I wrote a book that contained violence described in a way detailed or disturbing enough to get a reaction out of people, I could be thrown in jail/fined because the book lacks"serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." as considered by the population. Now I'd probably have to make it have some seriously morally corrupt situations or something to actually cause people to care and try to ban it, but it still proves a point. Freedom of Expression can be censored if people consider it obscene, which in my opinion defeats the purpose of it. Suppose people were a lot more sensitive than they are now, theoretically every form of videogame violence could be declared obscene and banned if people decided so. If the majority of people considered it lacking in "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value", then it can indeed be banned and possession or distribution of it could be punishable by law. I honestly do not think obscenity laws are constitutional, they limit freedom of expression and serve little purpose. I don't mind when people have to put warning on things with somewhat obscene content like moving ratings and videogame age ratings, but banning the possession or distribution of things declared too obscene is downright censorship.