The issue of whether or not pornography censorship is a violation of the First Amendment is quite challenging. The term pornography fits sexual activities performed in front of the camera. Pornography is a very unpopular speech since it harms the society more than it does well, that is if there is any good that comes from it. These treacherous productions have damaged both the individual and the society. However, the pornography as a “speech” has found its way under the protection of the First Amendment. Nonetheless, recently, this form of “speech” or “expression” has caused argument that has prompt the call for re-evaluation and revision of the traditional principles of free speech.
Pornography is illegal in some counties and many governments have attempted to regulate the content from their countries. However, in the United States, the issue is a problematic one that ends up having a backlash whenever it arises. The challenge usually comes about when it comes to whether or not the constitution protects pornography. The First Amendment clearly states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The first amendment, therefore, allows many to argue that pornography is part of “freedom of speech” as it is an artistic expression.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Nonetheless, this is hard to prove given the fact that pornography is considered obscene by the moral standards of the society. The First Amendment protects “freedom of speech,” and it is difficult to prove that pornography is a form of speech. Understanding the meaning of speech is crucial because it determines whether or not the law protects pornography. The First Amendments does not say anything about artistic expression thus making legalization of pornography null and void. Additionally, to prove the law does not protect pornography, it is crucial to argue on the basis of obscenity, that is, the work in question is patently offensive to the set standards of the community and lack artistic values. Internet pornography does not add any artistic value to the community. Instead, it enhances immorality. Therefore, one cannot argue that pornography is a “protected speech” as stated under the law. Clearly, the First Amendment does not protect obscenity; hence, internet pornography is not protected by the law.
The First Amendment does not directly grant Americans any right, but instead, it protects them from infringements of rights by the federal governments. The state governments have no authority to censor or regulate any speech of any kind, and some will argue that pornography will belong under this category too, therefore, making censorship very difficult. However, the bottom line is that pornography is more harmful than it is helpful, for instance, pornography has degraded women, offer content such as rape porn which escalates violence against women, and so forth. In this case, the society can argue out that pornography is causing moral decay to the community and thus need censorship. As stated earlier, the First Amendment deals with the protection of speech, and pornography is definitely not a form of speech. Instead, it is what is wrong with the society. If pornography is to be classified as speech, then it should belong under the hate speech, since sexual explicit of the female actors promote violence and discrimination against women. By censoring pornography, the law is protecting women from the explicit expression that is degrading and subordinating to women. This argument allows the ideology of obscenity which is not protected under the constitution to be visible thus allowing pornographic regulations if not ban. By enforcing such definition, the court will have no choice but to illegalize pornography, if it hopes to save what is left of the society.
Freedom of expression is a very vital part of American society. The fact that the constitution protects individual freedom of speech is a great thing. However, there has to be a clear line between violating rights and freedom of expression. When the morality of a society is being put into question, then, a line needs to be drawn. Pornography is an example of an unpopular expression that degrades the morals of the society as a whole. Admittedly, when the society is put in a position to choose between equality and freedom of speech, what image is it showing about the American society? The Supreme Court has in many occasion reversed or even upheld rulings under the context of free speech, even though some of these acts are not morally upright. For instance, neo-Nazi cases fall under the freedom of expression although the Nazi regime represents the dark past of the world. What is moral is no longer the concern of many, instead, the selfish societal need, like making a profit through pornography at the expense of the morality of the right of women, is more critical than the degradation of morality. It is admirable that the constitution protects individual rights and freedoms, but it is absurd that this is done at the lifeline of a society. The society should protect itself from what is morally wrong. The Constitution grants sovereignty of the people, meaning that the state and the government established and continued by the consent of the people through those that they elect. This gives the people the right to petition for changes that they deem beneficial to the society.
Sites that exhibit sexual contents should have age verification codes that allow adults of ages 21 years and above to access. This should be done through a portal that has the profile picture and ID of an individual who wishes to access such sites. The information provided must be verified with the national data center to ensure that fake IDs are detected during the process of registration. In the case of sites that introduce clients to each other, it is the responsibility of the management to run a background check on all their clientele. This includes the person’s home address, criminal background, and age. This information should be verified before anyone is allowed to create a profile to avoid catfishing cases. The federal governments prohibit indecent and obscene contents from broadcast on TV. For a program to be obscene it must meet the three-pronged test that is established by the Supreme Court: it must depict conduct that is patently offensive, as a whole, the content lacks serious political, scientific, and even artistic values, finally, the material must appeal to a person excessive interest in sexual matters.
On the other hand, indecent content is one that shows sexual activities or organs in a way that does not meet the obscenity three-prong test. Indecency is, however, protected by the First Amendment thus the courts have no rights to prosecute people who are found guilty of it. The same applies to violent or hate speech. The Supreme Court has allowed such speech on the regard that the First Amendment protects people who are involved in such acts. Such ruling leaves children vulnerable as they can access sexual sites without any restrictions. In the long run, their morality is compromised.
