Philoaophy Of Law :: essays research papers

In comparing the issues surrounding the distribution and depiction of pornographic and antiblack materials, very few differences, if any, can be derived from the deuce. Besides the obvious differences in which one form appeals itself to the adult community and the other to the racist community, the two extremes, nonetheless, fall under a much broader category. They are both recognise and valid forms of diction, and as such are equally entitled to the aforesaid(prenominal) constitutional protection provided by the freedom of speech clause of the scratch Amendment as are various other legitimate forms of speech.In the maculation provided before us, we are asked to determine whether an individual should possess the right to go on racist films graphically depicting whites verbally abusing, beating, and urinating upon blacks. My immediate response to the mind would undoubtedly argue that such morally smelly material should not be allowed constitutional protection. The mere mentio ning of such a proposition strikes raise at the heart of moral conscience. But, my moral convictions are not, nor are anyone elses for that matter, sufficient grounds to deny anyone their First Amendment right to freely deal in the distribution of such material if they so desire to do so. Moreover, the First Amendment clearly dictates that Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech. Thus, as a long established and highly empowered legal doctrine, it essential in the long run be respected by the government to the fullest extent. The First Amendment does not state, nor does it imply, that only specific forms of speech which are morally just shall be free of governmental interference, while other forms believed to be offensive to affable morality, such as pornography or racist films, shall not please such a privilege. If that were to be the actual case, freedom of speech, which has long been idolise by our nation as one of the fundamental liberties of American history, would advance cease to exist. All that would have to be proven to restrict speech would be that the message being expressed contains the slightest mention of morally offensive content. Fortunately, however, the freedom of speech clause grants people the power to convey their opinions in the manner which they deem fit. Thus, if the owner of a video store chooses to portion out videos in which African-Americans are repeatedly verbally and physically abused, then ultimately his right to do so must be respected.