Let's talk about sex...

There can be no denying that American society has progressively liberalized speech and free expression. One area, however, that remains a rigidly regulated is sexual content. Whether implicit or explicit, the topic of sex and sexuality is still very much taboo. The simple fact that there is considerably less protection and an additional set of criteria that applies to expression that that may even be interpreted as sexual (i.e. nudes, open discussion of sexuality in clinical terms, etc.) proves that the topic of sex is still to hot to handle in American society.

Roth v. United States (1957) attempted to define parameters around which society and those who would produce adult materials would both be more clearly aware of what was constitutionally protected and what wasn't.

Roth stated that in order to be obscene, materials must:
a) as a whole, appeal to prurient interest
b) be utterly without redeeming social importance
c) be considered by the average reasonable person to appeal to prurient interest; this standard was national.

Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966) further limited government power to regulate, requiring:
a) be patently offensive
b) be utterly without redeeming social value

Question #1: Why do you think that the US Supreme Court has consistently ruled in favor of government regulation since Miller v. California (1973) in which the Court granted local government, not national, the prerogative to determine obscenity?

The one respect in which all obscenity law agrees, mandated by the US Supreme Court in New York v. Ferber, is that child pornography is not constitutionally protected. However, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition allowed non-minor actors to portray minors in pornography and allowed "virtual child porn". The Court even went so far as to say that child pornography did not necessarily lack redeeming social value but that the cost of producing real-time child porn (being the physical and psychological damage to the young participants) inherently outweighed whatever social value may be present. The Court ruled that the First Amendment made distinction between bad words and bad deeds and thus legal activity that depicted illegal activity may be protected.

Question #2: Given this interpretation, is there such a thing as content that would pass the "imminent incitement" muster and be considered legal in all respects save the promotion of a crime to such an extent that it is quite nearly a directive? Why do you think this standard is so significantly less rigorous for child pornography where it is more rigorous for "hate speech"?

There have been laws enacted in response to Westboro Baptist Church's affinity for protesting military funerals. Many state Supreme Courts have upheld these laws stating that the emotional nature of the event makes protest speech, even when conducted in a peaceable assembly, an "imminent incitement" of lawless behavior, specifically violence between protesters and funeral participants.

Question #3: Given the volatile nature of people's reactions to child abuse, could the "imminent incitement" test be applied in the same respect that laws banning protests at funerals, citing the potential for violence as the act being incited, not the depiction of the act of abuse itself?

Response to 5/6 debate

In the debate surrounding the proposed federal legislation barring demonstration at funerals of fallen soldiers, the conflict eventually boils down to principle or decency. Do we stand behind the principle of free speech or do we support the decency of respecting families’ rights to grieve in privacy?

The government presents much legal precedence in citing case law supporting decency and the family’s right to private and dignified mourning. They also then cited the ultimate sacrifice of our fallen, saying that this is deserving of greater respect and consideration than the consideration offered to dissenters.

The opposition presented arguments against any kind of government imposed restriction, citing the slippery slope argument. Where does the line get drawn? What right does the government have to determine what is appropriate for any given time or place.

The government presents compelling arguments, arguments that appeal to our sympathies and admirable tendencies to protect and honor the families who have given so much to protect our country. The problem, however, is that the history of this country is rife times and social movements that dissent has been suppressed for the sake of decency. History has demonstrated the validity of the slippery slope argument. This was very well demonstrated by the opposition in connecting the principle of freedom in the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement and the Westboro Baptist Church. All of these movements represent a social perspective that was or is not popular in their height.

Our country’s heart and soul lies in our principles of freedom and democracy. Thus, even as we decry the indecency of those who would disrespect the memory of our fallen, let us honor the commitment of our fallen by protecting the very rights they died protecting. Allow society to enforce the societal norms and leave the government to uphold the ideals.

What would your grandmother say?

McMasters cites social civility as one of the deteriorating elements of freedom of expression. Well, the solution is simple. Be civil.
Our society is one that allows incivility in the name of freedom. I'm not saying that we need to legally regulate behavior and language. A sense of common respect should come into the picture when you decide whether or not to drop the f-bomb while walking past a funeral procession or on the bus next grandma taking her grandkids to the zoo. In these situation, personal responsibility and social accountability should come into play. Should granny call the cops and complain? No. Unless the offending person is a complete sociopath, the embarassment of having a grandmother chastizing him for being so offensive in front of the children, with other busriders staring, should be sufficient motivation to clean up his/her mouth.
A return to social accountability will resolve the issues that McMasters argues legal issues are trying to resolve, thus impinging on freedom. Freedom comes with a price. Human beings, whether the individual likes to admit it or not, are social creatures. Social ostracization for inappropriate behavior usually corrects the offending behavior. These civilities are not new, just the idea that they need to be legally regulated.

Blog personal statement

The primary purpose of this blog is to communicate and collaborate with my professor and colleagues in Communication Rights and Law (CMJR 494) at Seattle University. Feel free make comments regarding anything posted here that strikes you, whether it be positive or critical feedback. Conent on this page may be controversial or opposite of what you may believe but respect of all opinions is expected.