FREE SPEECH
Before I begin my discussion on free speech, I would like to start off by saying fuck the CDA, FCC and anyone who opposes free speech in any way.
Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The First Amendment was written to protect all speech, including but not limited to, pure speech, symbolic speech such as photos, paintings, drawings, lyrics to music, theatrical plays written speech such as books, mags, newspapers, and, yes, even the the most offensive and controversial rude, lude, and crude speech from government suppression. The best way to counter obnoxious speech is with more speech.
Other obvious ways would be to:I, myself, have a slight problem with free speech when it comes to people who burn flags and degrade the country. I would love to see all these fools rot in jail, but at the same time I would feel like a complete hypocrite if I went around trying to prevent these morons from expressing their opinion of our country, their not wasting anybody's time or hurting anybody but themselves. I'll give you a quick example of what can happen if we tried to stop flag burners. This one is easy because flag burning used to be illegal. So we want to stop these people from burning the US. flag, so we all get together and work hard to raise awareness of these horrible flag burners. The majority agrees, the new law is voted on, the law passes, and we are victorious. Right? WRONG. Unfortunately censorship laws are not that specific. The law would not read "Burning the US. flag is a violation of the law and is punishable by a maximum of one year in jail and/or a $5000 fine. The law would refer to flag burning as flag degradation. Which means: To reduce in grade, rank, or status; demote. 2. To lower in dignity; dishonor or disgrace. 3. To lower in moral or intellectual character; debase. Now all of a sudden our effort to stop flag burners has back fired in our face and turned into a restriction on how we all use the flag. In my case, I could be breaking the law if one of my girls were to wear a stars & striped bikini while stripping or participating in any adult related action, i.e. adult video and photo shoots, etc., where a liberal could view it and deem it disgraceful. Mine and many others fate would be left up to some sheltered judges opinion of whether or not I dishonored or disgraced our flag. (keep in mind the key word here is opinion), but everyone has them, everyone needs them, and everyone has the right to express them. Opinions are fine and dandy, unless you are of the opinion that other people should not be able to share their opinions or beliefs. I have no problem with people who think pornographic material is indecent. But please let me decide for myself. Furthermore, indecent has not been legally defined and can never truly be because what seems indecent in your opinion may or may not seem that way to another.
Understandably, the Government can limit some protected speech by using what is called a "time, place, and manner " restriction. This has to do with requiring permits for meetings, rallies and demonstrations. A permit cannot be unreasonably withheld, nor can it be denied based on content of the speech. This is called viewpoint discrimination, and that, of course, is totally unconstitutional, for now anyway. Threatening phone calls, for example, are not constitutionally protected. PS, as soon as I generate enough support, and I'm not talking financial support, I'm talking bodies here. I plan to to hold a demonstration on what I call free speech. I wont be talking about saving Mark Twain's "Huckleberry Finn" or Michael Angelo's "David". What I will be talking about is my right and your right to view any number of consenting adults in complete nudity, depicting sexual acts by way of videos, books & magazines, inter-net, CD-ROMS, and any other mass media with attention paid to "time, place, and manner ".
Like I said earlier, I'm not trying to save pornography by hiding behind the political correctness of the First Amendment. I'm coming right out in the open and saying leave people's sexuality alone. If I feel the need to beat off in a video booth, read (or not read) "dirty" magazines, or frequent swinger clubs, don't try to stop me. Let me control my own sexual appetite. I've never felt like hurting any one after I got off. Furthermore, no link whatsoever between exposure to Pornography, "sexually explicit material", and anti-social or violent behavior has ever been scientifically established, in spite of many efforts to do so. Whether Pornography is made illegal or not it will always be here in one way or another. There is no need to expand an already enormously large black market. Pornography is not a legal term at all. Its dictionary definition is "writing or pictures intended to arouse sexual desire." Pornography comes in as many varieties as the human sexual impulse and is protected by the First Amendment unless it meets the definition for illegal obscenity.
Legally "obscene" material has historically been excluded from First Amendment protection. Unfortunately, the relatively narrow obscenity exception, described below, has been abused government authorities and private pressure groups. Sexual expression in art and entertainment is, and has historically been, the most frequent target of censorship crusades, from James Joyce's classic Ulysses to the photographs of Robert Mapplethorpe.
In the 1973 Miller v. California decision, the Court established three conditions that must be present if a work is to be deemed "legally obscene." It must 1) appeal to the average person's prurient (shameful, morbid) interest in sex; 2) depict sexual conduct in a "patently offensive way" as defined by community standards; and 3) taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. Attempts to apply the "Miller test" have demonstrated the impossibility of formulating a precise definition of obscenity. Justice Potter Stewart once delivered a famous one-liner on the subject: "I know it when I see it." But the fact is, the obscenity exception to the First Amendment is highly subjective and practically invites government abuse. We should not give the government the power to decide which opinions are obscene.
The Supreme Court has held that Indecent expression -- in contrast with "obscenity" -- is entitled to some constitutional protection, but that indecency in some media (broadcasting, cable, and telephone) may be regulated. In its 1978 decision in Federal Communications, Commission v. Pacifica, the Court ruled that the government could require radio and television stations to air "indecent" material only during those hours when children would be unlikely listeners or viewers. Broadcast indecency was defined as: "language that describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory activities or organs." This vague concept continues to baffle the public, the courts, and me. The Supreme Court has allowed censorship of sexual speech on moral grounds but who's moral grounds? Not mine of course !!! We should not give the government the power to decide which opinions are obscene.
Why should we oppose censorship when scenes of murder and mayhem dominate the TV screen, when works of art can be seen as a direct insult to peoples' religious beliefs, and when much sexually explicit material can be seen as degrading to women? Why not let the majority's morality and taste dictate what others can look at or listen to?
The best argument that the liberals have is "I don't want my kids to see this", but, honestly, I think the "stork story" is outdated and confuses children. If you have a child, you also have many responsibilities that come along with parenthood. One of which is protecting them from what you consider to be physically or morally harmful. Protecting your child is your job not the government's job.
As long as I'm not swinging my penis in you or your child's face without any direction or way for you to turn your head and cover your child's eyes, pay me no mind. We all need to live and let live and start focusing on what you need to get ahead in life. Time is a gift from God, spend it trying to perfect your own life, not mine or others like me. Censorship is like your very own really strong intestinal gas: a powerful odor that can even annoy you when the wind shifts.
Please Hit Your Browser's BACK Button
To Return to Previous Page
-