Why censoring sexist and racist media violates the First Amendment

¶ … Proposition Statement: Even if the media might be racist or sexist in its content, there should not be censorship of the media because of the first amendment.

Freedom of speech means freedom to disagree

Attention getting statement:

Fire!

Everyone knows that shouting fire in a crowded theater is not only morally wrong, it's also against the law. It's the classic argument against full freedom of speech. According to Chief Justice Holmes, as discussed in the history of the Supreme Court, The Brethren, the justice said that freedom of speech cannot be absolute, because for instance you can't shout fire in a crowded theater and call that free speech. But although most people might agree with him about that, still that doesn't mean that you can make that analogy with every restriction of free speech.

Preview

The problem:

Why restrict freedom of speech at all? The problem today, some might say, is that increasingly, we are seeing exploitative media that contains violence, vulgar images and language against women and members of minority groups.

The cause:

The cause of this is complex. Many people wish to simply blame modern, popular culture. But the sources of this problem trace back as far as the causes of sexism and slavery themselves, far back before the Internet and television.

Preview / Personal appeal:

Of course everyone is hurt who sees images that are negative of themselves in the media.

Preview opposing views/rebuttals:

And many people say that, for instance, negative images of women affect young girl's self-esteem in a permanent and irrevocable fashion. But one cannot isolate these images from the culture that produced them. People must be given the right to speak freely, to engage these negative images in an intelligent way, rather than simply try to ban them.

Preview solutions to the problem

After all, if one simply bans these images, the question is posed -- who will be the people to ban them, to judge what is offensive and not offensive. Speak out, don't smother the opposition!

II. DISCUSSION

Problem of Exploitation in the media

Supporting details regarding problem:

The problem one might say is everywhere. Look on the pages (show pictures) of magazines, from Vogue to Playboy. Listen to everything from the homophobia in Emenem to the anti-woman violence expressed in the lyrics of 2 Live Crew.

2. Supporting Details:

So increasingly and perhaps understandably people have advocated banning such expression to protect minors and impressionable youths.

Further Supporting Details:

But ultimately, such a ban is more of a problem than a cure. After all, who will be in control of banning free speech but those who generated the culture that produced these images themselves?

Causes of Exploitative Media Images:

Who perpetuates this problem?

Ultimately, we in this room perpetuate the problem by consuming such images as well as the media moguls and politicians. The media produces these images because we consume them and use our dollars to perpetuate the cycle.

Opposing view #2

Some say, it's not free speech -- just pornography. "I know it when I see it," said one circuit court justice quoted in Bob Woodward's book on the Supreme Court The Brethren, in explaining why he wished to censor certain images.

a. Rebuttal #1: Even courts admit subjective judgement, no absolute standard of what is offensive.

b. Rebuttal #2: One's person pornography is another person's free expression. What about lesbian pornography, for instance? The people who attempt to ban what they dislike in the media may end up having their own expression threatened. The constitutional scholar Catherine MacKinnen, an advocate for banning pornography, saw her own works banned in Canada by the law she advocated, rather than the type of violent pornography she expected to see banned, according to the internet magazine The Ethical Spectacle.

Solutions

Personal Solutions:

Instead, support free speech in all its forms, so that your own free speech will be supported.

Successful Solutions:

Compare our own governmental system to that of more repressive regimes. Have to tolerate excesses of free speech to enjoy benefits.

A clear plan of action.

What is so frustrating is that opposition to censorship not always clear plan. Sometimes it's the opposite -- tolerating what you dislike so you have your own rights in tact to express yourself.

III. CONCLUSION

Review:

Don't give into that impulses to say ban it when you see something you dislike!

The problem:

The problem is not the existence of exploitative media; it's that people don't speak out enough against it.

The causes:

The causes are too deep in our culture to be corrected by the cosmetic surgery of censorship.

Personal efforts:

Everyone needs to make a personal resolution to speak out everyday when they see something they don't like.

Reiterate opponents' views/reinforce proposal:

This might feel more difficult and frightening than advocating banning.

Remind audience of solution:

But engagement not censorship is the ultimate defense.

Remember that example about 'fire in a crowded theater?' You know what that was in reference to? Well, the Supreme Court justice who said it was making an analogy between shouting fire and people speaking out against the war in World War I. To him, opposition to the government's policy was immoral. Fortunately, the courts don't think that way today -- but think twice before you as citizens advocate censorship as a tool to deal with exploitative media images. I'm still not sure we should trust them, and I don't mean to alarm you by shouting 'fire' I mean for you to be intelligently aware of legislation's limitations.