Freedom of Speech

The Washington Post had an article that caught my attention last week. I wish I could find the exact article I read but this one deals with the same subject. It is an interesting topic? State funding versus freedom of speech versus legality of showing pornography.

First let me give you some information on pornography. Porn can never satisfy a person. It leaves the viewer craving for more and more in order to achieve the sexual high they are trying to get. It enslaves them and leads to not only self abuse but violence, hatred, lying, anger, and selfishness towards others. It is an addition that is hard to break on ones own. It warps and perverts their view of sex and can lead to unhealthy expectations. It leads to not only debt, but has the potential to lead to crimes such as rape and sadism, not to mention child porn. It destroys relationships and marriages and sex no longer becomes something sacred between a man and a women. $3,075.64 is being spent on pornography every second
and 28,258 Internet users are viewing pornography every second. This problem, which destroys lives and relationships is not going away and seems to become more popular as time goes on.

Now freedom of speech. Is is the freedom to speak freely without censorship or limitation? The actual wording of the first amendment is "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." This amendment is often applied to the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information or ideas regardless of the medium used. This freedom is not absolute as there are often restrictions places based on the competing values.For example, this does not include Hate Speech. Also, a law limited speech can be deemed constitutional if it is the least drastic means available for accomplishing its stated objects. The court has also allowed speech to be restricted in certain places. While public forums are offered almost blanket protection, public libraries, public schools, and jails are not. The Court has ruled that in the interest of order and decorum, speech may be reasonably limited in these places. One must also remember that this freedom is only to restrict the government from restricting your rights, these laws to not apply the same way to the private sector. The 1980 U.S. Supreme Court case Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins said the U.S. Constitution does not give individuals an absolute right to enter and remain on private property to exercise their right to free expression. The state were given the power to adopt reasonable restrictions on private property, including granting greater freedom to individuals to use such property but most states that have encountered this issue have followed the Court's view. Thus your freedom of speech is not always protect.

Does porn fall under freedom of speech? The Courts are constantly debating whether restrictions on Pornography are restriction freedom of speech. How do you regulate child porn without restricting this right that adults have? Where is the fine line between illegal behavior and someones freedoms. Legislation that would ban certain types of pornography are getting more often than not ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. In 2004 the Supreme Court ruled that a law mean to punish pornographers who peddles porn to web-surfing kids is unconstitutional. Apparently it had too many restrictions, that though it was mean to do some good, would harm peoples freedom of speech. This is just one example of the many times the Supreme Court has ruled legislation restricting pornography unconstitutional, with the support of the ACLU. So based on the Supreme Court, the viewing of pornography is a freedom and any such restriction of it would be in violation of freedom of speech. This is not to say that the Supreme Court has always declared legislation unconstitutional. In 2008, the 2003 Protect Act was declared constitutional, overturning the ruling of a lower court. This act was to prevent child abuse.

So is the porn movie, which was not child porn, protected because of freedom of speech and because it was shown at a public university? Unfortunately the answer is yes. The Government technically has no right to restrict the showing of the porn movie at the school as it breaks no laws and because the school is government owned and is a public arena. The senators act to keep funding from the school is probably technically unconstitutional. Until the courts allow more restrictions on porn the state university can not necessarily restrict it.

But now for my personal opinion:

The fact that the school is allowed to show porn is a good example of why our society is going down the gutters. To want to show such degrading material to the students, pretending that its to educate them in safe sex is disturbing. Like the students are going to care or remember what they were just taught if they are waiting for this form of sexual stimulation. I am glad the senator is trying to restrict their funding, not because I think it will work, but because at least some one is standing up to what is going on on our college campuses. Maybe one day this country will realize what pornography is doing to our country and will work to find a solution to this problem. But for now, this is just another example of why we need to have the total separation between government and education as we try to have with government and religion. Everyday I hope my future children will be able to go to private universities so that they can get a good education and not be given an invite to a public showing of a porn movie.

And as a end note: If you watch Indoctrinate U you will see that while freedom of speech is often curtailed based on political beliefs. I guess its only important when it concerns something you believe in.