Monday, September 29, 2008
13. Protected Speech
Susan Brownmiller writes, "We live quite compatibly with a host of free-speech abridgements" (54); Charles R. Lawrence III claims that certain forms of speech run the "risk [of] making the First Amendment an instrument of domination rather than a vehicle of liberation" (57). When do you think that free speech should--or should not--be restricted? Give specific examples and explain your reasoning. Due Wednesday, 1 October.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
After reading the two artcicles based on "free speech." I was quite torn or undecisive. Susan Brownmiller relates more on the abuse of pornography being shown to the public. Brownmiller seems to believe that the showing of naked women in sexual activity is degrading to all women. Brownmiller says, "that pornography's intent is to humiliate, degrade, and dehumanize the female body for the purpose of erotic stimulation and pleasure." My opinion on poronography, is that the women on the cover of top magazines such as Hustler, Penthouse, and Playboy (p.53) their degrading themselves. It doesn't effect me, i'm not forced to look at such magazines sp therefore I could care less of they were in public or not. Yes, these magazines have their place, such as in a store based on what their advertising or representing. I agree with her that it should be kept in the closet, and in the closet to me is that store for that certain type of advertising. Brownmiller is a feminist so therefore she is going to be totally against the whole idea of women posing nude. She says, "the feminist objection to pornography is based on our belief that pornography represents hatred of women." I'm not a big feminist so I disagree when she says it's representing the hatred of women, I don't think that's true. Speaking of hatred, Charles R. Lawerence III, wrote an article about "free speech" also but in a different way. Lawerence speaks more of free speech involving "racist speech." I'm sure that no one ever wants to experience racist assault, but it happens everywhere. In bathrooms, posters, fliers, and school(p.57) It's really sad when racial issues come to school,such as universities, affecting students who just want to learn. Lawerence says, "A minortiy student should not have to risk becoming the target of racially assaulting speech every time he or she chooses to walk across campus." I think that whenever individuals want to make racial comments, they should do it in the privacy of their own home and not to someone it could possibly affect. People don't think what they say can scar someone for life or hurt them mentally, but that is the typical individual, we don't think. Lawrence says, "Whenever we make such arguments, we are striking a balance on the one hand between our concern for the continued free flow of ideas and the democratic process dependent on the flow,and, on the other, our desire to further the cause of equality." I agree with this statment, if we want to further the whole "equality" thing then such racial comments need to be kept to yourself. If you can't say anything nice don't say anything at all.
Both authors presented their perspective of the First Amendment (Freedom of speech). Yet, Brownmiller focus entirely on pornography while Lawrence focus on ideals of racists. In 1973, the Miller case drew the court to conclude that "The materials are obscene if they depict patiently offensive, hard-core sexual conduct; lack serious scientific literary, artistic, or political value; and appeal to the prurient interest of an average person- as measured by contemporary community standards." Brownmiller states that feminist objection to pornography is based on our belief that pornography represents hatred of women, that pornography's intent is to humiliate, degrade,and dehumanize the female body for the purpose of erotic stimulation and pleasure." I don't think that pornography of females describes such hatred. If it is, than why are there so many females willing to go undress infront of a camera. Sometimes its for the money but they're willing to do it anyways. Here in American, Pornography is used for entertainment if you really like. But, what does pornography have to do with the freedom speech anyway? Today, pornographic photos are display in specific magazines so it shouldn't be a problem with freedom of speech since it is limited to the public.
Idea of hatred presented by Lawarence, does show that freedom of speech are limited. If we hurt someone because we are being racist than our words should not be protected by the First Amendment. As stated by Lawrence, "Racial insults are particularly undeserving of 1st Amendment protection because the perpetrator's intention is not to discover truth or initiate dialogue but to injure the victim." Also, freedom of speech should be limited if cause harm to the campus. If students are giving a speech in public, they must be considerate. Of course, it is very hard to be considerate of others but we must obey by our school's rules that we were warned off. As citizens of this great nation, we are given so many wonderful rights but our rights are limited and there are times when rules are to be obey because you don't want to go too far.
After reading the two articles of Brownmiller and Lawrence, I was not surprised about what they had to say. Especially Brownmiller, talks about showing nudity of woman models to the public in magazines and such. All the nudity of woman models is very attractive by guys. According to Lawrence, he talks about a racist speech such as the landmark case of Brown vs. Board of education which separated whites from blacks in a segregated school. The First Amendment in this speech deals with freedom of speech which is the right to say anything as long as it doesn’t harm or affect other people. If you know you are going to say something that will hurt other people then don’t say it. Keep it to yourself. I think free speech should be restricted when you know you are going to hurt someone or is going to affect other people.
Well, as I can see both authors have their points of free speech can cause the problems to most people with violation and embarrassed to our own country or other countries as I should say. If we want to protect ourselves from them, maybe not for free speech but limited speech if necessary to be safe for our future children, as there should be rules of speeches to made up, I guess. I can see Brownmiller, a feminist, supports about the pornography as she thinks people would like to learn something from porn as "literature, art, science, and education" but against the naked women photography or something. As for sex education at schools, there are some banned but some people disagree and say that students must learn about it. I agree with Brownmiller that pornography can be creation of a cultural climate and art but in a way, it can be tortured or terroried to women, children, and even for men.
So yes, I would like pornography to be locked into a closet from innocent people but for other people who enjoy arts would like to continue to show off beauty of our naked bodies for art or others, maybe only for arts, okay but to show how sex can be fun? No thanks.
As for Lawrence III, he wrote about racist speech as injustice for everyone in the world. He said that protecting bad speech from government regulation, we will be forced to combat it as a community. Well, that's true but there is still bad language using in USA to cause violation more than we can image. He explained that there is the real victims that tried to voice for us but we don't listen and don't comprehend that they are in trouble or serious injury by someone else... He used black and white races as examples in Brown v. Board of Education for black children going to the schools with white ones as unfit. "Fighting words" sometimes can be strong for us to be insulted or caused violation. I know them when I was young because I often used them on other students who I disliked as easy targets. He seemed he tried to tell us that First Amendment must be banned because of causing harm to most people from a smaller but stronger word. "Free speech" can be confused to people to think that any word to use but do not expect them to cause harms to other people easily.
I always loathe to use swear words since I am growing up to see more of them on movies, television shows, magazines, or everywhere! However, it influences me to use them when I got upset with someone but I am very careful to use them wisely if possible. I know they can be dangerous. Free speech, of course, is whatever we want to say or tell but should know how to use them well and wisely!
Even though I might not entirely agree with restricting free speech, I do believe that it is something that should be somewhat restricted. I think that if it is anything that is hurting a person or it is something that is not asked for, then it should be restricted. It is a person’s right to say whatever they want, but to hurt or degrade someone just doesn’t merit good moral.
Are we even really restricted? For example, you might not be able to call a person certain names to their face or even in public; however, you can go to your own private house and say whatever you want. And that is, what I believe anyways, keeps the First Amendment in check. As long as you are still able to say what you feel somewhere, then your First Amendment is not being violated. However, if that somewhere is going to somehow effect somebody then that person should know how to restrict their selves and shouldn’t need someone to do it for them.
So, I guess what I am trying to say is that freedom of speech shouldn’t be restricted. A person shouldn’t need a government or anybody for that matter to tell them when to keep their mouths shut. It is just common sense.
Freedom of speech is often viewed as a constitutional right that should not be altered. It allows us to willingly say whatever comes to our minds as long as it is not harmful to another person and what is said are not fighting words. Should that simply be enough limitations of the First Amendment? Susan Brownmiller makes the case that the restrictions made are not clearly defined, and so do not go far enough. In Brownmiller’s essay, she discusses nudity and pornography. In paragraph 12 she says that “if ‘hard-core’ refers only to explicit sexual intercourse, that that isn’t good enough.” Brownmiller notices that pornography is more than references harm to a woman’s body, and that should be considered “hard-core” to the Supreme Court and consequently considered unconstitutional. However, since the Supreme Court did not clearly specify what is considered “hard-core” many explicit material is distributed around the world. Brownmiller pushes for the legislative to decide what should and should not be displayed, deciding what is considered t be against “contemporary community standards.” Those that produce such images use the First Amendment as protection from most laws. However, shouldn’t such images as rape and torture be considered harmful? If not just to the individual woman that partakes in these vulgar scenes than to the communities that have to witness, even in passing, such frightful displays of indecency. Charles R. Lawrence III presents a case against racial speech, and he too does not believe that the restrictions placed the First Amendment went far enough. In paragraph four Lawrence says “if we understood the necessity of eliminating the system of signs and symbols that signal inferiority of blacks, then we should hesitate before proclaiming that all racist speech that stops short of physical violence must be defended.” The First Amendment does not protect the use of fighting worlds. Speeches made to advocate violence, even if it not directly after, does not make that speech any less offensive. Many people have over heard offensive remarks made in public arenas, and ignored even though it clearly shows the intent of making minorities feel inferior. Lawrence too witness the harm still committed because those that tried limiting the First Amendment were unable of completely defining exactly what should be limited.
Normally, I am an advocate in keeping the Bill of Rights as pure as possible. However, it has become increasing clear that with such a change in society means a clearer definition of the Bill of Rights and all Amendments. Since anyone can attempt to use “freedom of speech” as their protection of defaming an individual or a group, than clearly the “freedom of speech” is too free. A land based on equality should than make sure that that equality is consistent, and as defined and enforced as possible. Our government granting “freedom of speech” is not an “unalienable right” but rather a privilege that should be used with respect and not taken for granted as many lawsuits are quick to try.
To me, free speech means saying or doing whatever you want to do as long as it doesn't put anyone else in danger. Susan Brownmiller states in her article "that pornography's intent is to humiliate, degrade, and dehumanize the female body." Feminists, such as Brownmiller, probably do feel threatened by the crude acts of some women but to me, it's not that big of a deal. If a woman wants to sell herself or pose for a magazine in a provocative manner, who am I to stop her? Charles R. Lawrence III, however, proposes a very different idea. Racial slurs and displays are slightly more difficult to classify. I can walk/drive by a whole building posted up with gang symbols and not feel threatened or violated but some people feel unwanted or not welcome. Lawrence states, "It will be impossible to formulate a prohibition so precise that it will prevent the racist speech you want to suppress without catching in the same net all kinds of speech that it would be unconscionable for a democratic society to oppress." No law can please everybody. There will always be someone to get offended and complain. Personally, I don't see the point in even trying to regulate speech. Why can't we just say or do what we want and not worry about other people. If someone gets offended then they can figure out a way to avoid that problem in the future.
I don't think free speech should be restricted at all. It's our constitutional right to be able to say and express ourselves as we see fit. However, there is a certain conduct we should all live by and certain material, such as pornography as suggested by Brownmiller, that should be censored for policies of decency and discretion towards a younger audience. If someone lashes out at someone to hurt them with their free speech(it would be smart to have evidence to support any kind of claim whether it be about another person or and any subject for that matter), then the other person has the same amount of free speech to defend themselves. Who's to say someone can't make a racist speech if they feel that way as long as the other side as just as much opportunity to defend themselves? When rights start getting limited people may start finding themselves losing things they really felt they should have protected more in the first place.
Free speech, like free will, has its invisible boundaries, and should have some extent of respect for those around us. In my opinion, free speech should be censored to an extent due to circumstance. For example, the news is doing a segment on President Bush and his presidency. The anchors speak of their opinions of Bush, but in a respectful, tactful manner, saying that they feel Bush should have made a more intelligent decision as to the involvement of our American troops in Iraq. A less tactful expression would have been: Bush is just an idiot for sending our troops to Iraq, impeach him! There are degrees of our freedom of speech. We may state whatever we like, but keep it respectful and tactful. Especially when publicizing our ‘speech’ we should take appropriate actions to keep the opinions clean cut, and dignified.
Situations, such as a personal conversation among friends, family, or co-workers are another level of free speech. When conversing with individuals in a non-publicized environment, free speech can lack a censor. By telling your best friend or your boss of the ludicrous new law that has been passed, and how you think it will stink, is one example. Complaining to your Mother about how horrible of a person Roger is to you and how he should be shot, is again, another example of free, non-tactful speech.
Another degree of free speech depends on your position in the workforce. Let’s say that you are a manager of McDonalds and you just hate McDonalds’ burgers. You tell your wife how gross you think the imitation patties are, and how you wouldn’t even feed them to your dog. Now, would you say such a thing to a paying customer? Of course not, there you lack that ‘freedom’ of speech due to sales. Would you tell your District Manager what you think of McDonalds’ burgers? No way, you would lose your job.
Freedom of speech has boundaries in which we subconsciously set for ourselves. Depending on where we are, and who we are talking to, depends on our specific comment and censorship. Granted, some individuals have taken their right of freedom of speech to great lengths when calling names to different races, or verbally mistreating people around them. Those kinds of people need serious help, but nonetheless still deserve their right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech can be used or abused. Choose your words carefully, and still get your point across.
THe first ammendment was put in place so that a person could not be prosicuted when speaking out against anothers view. However, people in todays society believe that warrants them to say whatever they want whenever they want. That type of ignorant thinking is why we had rascism and other forms of hatred in the world. Susan Brownmiller talks about the American Nazi party and how they benefit from the first ammendment. I believe that america suffers from the ammendment because this group takes it too far. Freedom of speech needs to be protected against those who wish to hush the views of the American Nazi party. People can't just blurt out any thing they want because they may cause chaos. Lawrence refers to such statements as "fighting words", words that insinuate conflict and warrant no conversation only devistation. Freedom of speech should be protected for those who wish to make statements against the wrong not those who wish to make statements for the rong
I believe that there should be very few limits on the right to freedom of speech. Our ancestors chose to leave their countries to come to America in order to achieve a government that did not limit the things they could and could not do such as having the free will to say what they wanted or dress and act the way they deemed appropriate, such as women choosing to participate in pornography. In Susan Brownmiller’s article “Let’s put pornography back in the closet” she addresses her objection to pornography. She says “that pornography represents the hatred of women, that pornography’s intent is to humiliate, degrade, and dehumanize the female body…” Brownmiller’s point in saying these things was that there should be limitations to our right to the freedom of speech as Americans. I agree with her to an extent but I only feel as though there should be limitations when what someone is saying or doing puts someone else in danger so therefore pornography does not violate these limits. These women have the right to say and do as they please as long as they do not do harm to someone else. For example, if someone is threatening another person then they have crossed the boundaries of “freedom of speech” but until any harm or the promise of harm is made I believe there should be no limitations as to what you people are allowed to say and how people are allowed to act.
When Susan Brownmiller stated that, “we live quite compatibly with a host of free-speech abridgements”, she is practically saying that the country we live in a country were the guidelines for stating an opinion are pretty relaxed. The United States is a free country, and anyone is entitled to express their opinion about a subject without penalizations. In other parts of the world, lets say the middle east, what an individual can and can not say in the public is very limited and there are great consequences for speaking out of line. There are few guidelines in America. Susan carried on to say, “there are restraints against false and misleading advertising or statements”. For instance, a large company is not allowed to give the public false information about a product they are selling. Any verbal threats are also band. Free speech in a free country should be exactly what it means, FREE. People that live in America should be able to say anything they want, if it is truly how they feel. Although, and threats or grossly negative comments should not be allowed. People that say they are going to kill the president and then use the First Amendment as their case are abusing the system and our rights in this country. People of that matter should be dealt with by great consequences so this country can always remain “free”.
Post a Comment