4 ms·

What about freedom of speech, or freedom of press? The government shall make no law? I guess the convenient exception made by the FCC for regulating content sh

• User23 8y ago
  Obscenity isn’t protected by the first amendment. Obviously there is disagreement over what is and isn’t obscene.
  • nybble41 8y ago
    > Obscenity isn’t protected by the first amendment. Right, I must've missed the "except for obscenity" clause. Oh wait, there isn't one... that's just something the courts made up out of thin air. The freedom of speech includes all speech, even obscene speech. It is never appropriate to respond to speech with force.
    • User23 8y ago
      I happen to agree with you, but it’s not our opinion that determines the law, it’s the Supreme Court’s. And they have clearly and consistently held that obscenity is not protected by the first amendment, for the lifetime of the Republic.
      • StanislavPetrov 8y ago
        They also held that slavery was fine, until it wasn't. We have major problems in this country and the failures of our legal system are prime among them.
        • mikeash 8y ago
          Slavery was fine under the law. Once the Constitution was amended to prohibit it, the Court had no problem upholding that.
          • AnthonyMouse 8y ago
            The Constitution was amended to explicitly prohibit Congress from making laws abridging the freedom of speech as well. What's relevant is the Supreme Court reconsidering a previous decision without any change to the Constitution, but that too has happened before, e.g. Brown v. Board of Education.
            • mikeash 8y ago
              We have a comment complaining about the Court reading beyond what’s written, and another complaining about them failing to do so. I’m just pointing out the inconsistency. If you want total free speech based on a plain reading of the first amendment without considering context, then there’s no reasonable way for the Court to find slavery to be unconstitutional prior to the 13th amendment. I’m not taking a position here, just pointing out the implications of the slavery thing.
      • nybble41 8y ago
        > but it’s not our opinion that determines the law, it’s the Supreme Court’s The Supreme Court's authority comes from the Constitution. As such, while the Court can rule that a law is unconstitutional, they have no power to permit something which the Constitution specifically prohibits the government from doing (such as infringing on the freedom of speech). All their consistency on this issue implies is they have been failing to do their job and uphold the freedom of speech as plainly written in the First Amendment for a very long time.
    • aerotwelve 8y ago
      If you don't have a concept like obscenity -- even one that is as ill-defined as obscenity is after Miller -- you can't ban child pornography. Or the Human Sacrifice Channel.
      • nybble41 8y ago
        So? You can't produce either, at least not with real victims, without doing far worse than mere "obscenity". There is absolutely no need to infringe on the freedom of speech by banning the possession or distribution of evidence that real crimes have been committed, which is what these obscenity laws amount to.
• handelaar 8y ago
  Sedition has been a crime in the United States for the last 220 years.