“Protecting” Children: A Pretext for Government Censorship
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” Despite this most hallowed of constitutional imperatives, both Congress and the states have found numerous occasions upon which to pass such laws, and continue to do so today. Nowhere is this tendency more poignantly exemplified than in the arena of sexually explicit speech. At present, laws restricting speech that is “obscene,” “indecent,” or “patently offensive” remain a significant part of our legal landscape, and persist in threatening our ability to freely express ourselves about sex and obtain information about sex-related issues. Laws regulating sexually explicit speech have undergone a series of transformations over the course of the Twentieth Century, significantly expanding the rights of adults to view, create, and sell sexually explicit works. Pornography, for example, is no longer considered “obscene,” since it actually holds some “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” Indeed, it is extremely rare nowadays for a person to be prosecuted for obscenity. Nevertheless, lawmakers have found more creative and indirect ways
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Not-So-Compelling Government, Internet Section, Third Circuit, Supreme Court, Wide Web, Justice Brennan, CDA COPA, Powell Stevens, Justice Burger, Filthy Words, sexually explicit, explicit speech, sexually explicit speech, supreme court, protecting minors, sexually explicit material, explicit material, strict scrutiny, patently offensive, narrowly tailored, minors sexually explicit, minors sexually, web site, protecting minors sexually, world wide web,
Approximate Word count = 9327
Approximate Pages = 37 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
