Philoaophy Of Law :: essays research papers

In comparing the issues surrounding the distribution and depiction of sexy and racialist worldlys, very few differences, if any, can be derived from the two. Besides the manifest differences in which one form appeals itself to the adult community and the other to the racist community, the two extremes, nonetheless, fall under a much broader category. They are twain recognized and valid forms of speech, and as such are equally authorise to the same constitutional protection provided by the granting immunity of speech clause of the number one Amendment as are various other legitimate forms of speech.In the situation provided before us, we are asked to determine whether an individual should possess the even out to distribute racist films graphically depicting whites verbally abusing, beating, and urinating upon blacks. My immediate receipt to the question would undoubtedly argue that such chastely anxious material should not be allowed constitutional protection. The mere me ntioning of such a marriage offer strikes anger at the heart of moral conscience. But, my moral convictions are not, nor are anyone elses for that matter, sufficient grounds to deny anyone their First Amendment right to freely engage in the distribution of such material if they so proclivity to do so. Moreover, the First Amendment clearly dictates that Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech. Thus, as a bulky established and highly empowered legal doctrine, it must ultimately be respected by the government to the fullest extent. The First Amendment does not state, nor does it imply, that only specific forms of speech which are morally moreover shall be free of governmental interference, while other forms believed to be offensive to social morality, such as pornography or racist films, shall not enjoy such a privilege. If that were to be the actual case, freedom of speech, which has long been revered by our nation as one of the fundamental liberties of Amer ican history, would further cease to exist. All that would have to be proven to cumber speech would be that the message being expressed contains the slightest mention of morally offensive content. Fortunately, however, the freedom of speech clause grants people the power to sway their opinions in the manner which they deem fit. Thus, if the owner of a video storehouse chooses to sell videos in which African-Americans are repeatedly verbally and physically abused, hence ultimately his right to do so must be respected.