RDB Censorship

((The First Amendment reads “congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech”))
Our country was founded on the basis of freedom: freedom from British rule, freedom from oppressiveness and authoritative regimes, freedom from the violence of the War for Independence. The First Amendment of our constitution—the very first article of the Bill of Rights— calls for freedom of speech. Clearly the founders of our country believed that the spirit of freedom was an imperative part of the backbone of America. Today, the freedom to reveal the truth, to artistically display opinions, and to protest live on as traditional American values. Despite what D’Souza may argue, freedom of expression is actually a very conservative idea because of its traditionalism. Why then, would we want to infringe upon the right to freedom of expression and break the back of American freedom?

The constitution speaks of “free speech” but we interpret speech to mean “expression.” This is because one cannot separate verbal communication from multimedia forms of expression such as the internet, television, movies, and printed articles. If I interpret Candidate A’s stance correctly, he or she opposes all censorship of popular culture multimedia only to the extent that America’s media is already censored today. If Candidate A is elected, the limited restrictions on sex and violence in place today will remain intact. Those restrictions on free expression, according to the government, are justified when the expression poses a threat to the government. Furthermore, freedom of expression is not authorizing complete debasement of morals when it comes to violence and sex. The court decision of Roth v United States (1957), for example, concludes that “implicit in the history of the First Amendment is the rejection of obscenity as utterly without redeeming social importance.”[1]

D’Souza claims that the “liberal assault against family values in traditional cultures is typically conducted in the name of universal rights” (D’Souza 164). Yet, neither Candidate A nor the United States constitution is claiming that the right to freedom of expression is a universal value. D’Souza is correct in that “you can look in vain for [. . .] universal rights doctrines of the founding philosophers [but] you will not find them enumerated in the Declaration of Independence” (164). Nevertheless, there exists a direct link between freedom of speech and a working democracy.

Freedom of expression promotes a dynamic exchange and growth among individuals and marketplaces. It is a means of participation in government and a way for people to feel in-control of their lives. As long as that free speech does not harm anyone, then it is okay. Thus if sex or violence, in moderation, is the means to express oneself, then they should not be censored.
((Democracy already is a challenge, and censorship would increase that challenge by breaking the link between freedom of expression and democracy))

I sometimes agree with D’Souza in that the “depravity of American culture is defended and protected by the new liberal morality” (146). As many people have already mentioned in their DB’s, turning on a TV to lurid sex scenes and gory violence is not pleasant or moral. But people do indeed have the freedom of choice not to watch.

((Violence was a shocking and vivid part of Nazi Germany, a censored movie would be unable to show a scene similar to this))

In fact, some sex and violence are necessary to tell a story or to get an idea across. A movie or show about Nazi Germany, for example, would not be accurate without harsh instances of violence. Sexual undertones even seem essential for a show about, perhaps, Henry XIII with all his sexual escapes and wives. Violence and sex are a part of life, and although we may glean inaccurate ideas about them from uncensored shows, I think it is better to have them in expression than not. Hopefully people do not get their entire world view from multimedia. Parents, teachers, mentors, older siblings, or friends serve a practical purpose to help mediate ideas about sex and violence that people learn from the media. And as to the pornography that several people speak of, I definitely agree that such “obscenity” should be censored to an extent.
Indeed, it already is. So by electing Candidate A we would maintain the traditional American freedom of expression, and maintain the limited censorship already in place.

[1] “Decision: Roth v. United States (1957)” http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/speech/bldec_RothUS.htm . (accessed February 11, 2008).