The first amendment guarantees states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or 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 is one of the founding principals of America and the reason is stands as a symbol of freedom. The first amendment allows US citizens to express themselves through speech, clothing, art, or demonstrations without risk of being prosecuted. There are several exceptions to this amendment, which were created to protect the human rights of all Americans. A couple of these exceptions are hate speech, threats, and incitement to crime. One exception that does not exist but is highly debated concerns the American flag. Many people believe that individuals should not be allowed to burn or deface the American flag. Currently, any person is legally allowed to engage in these acts with the flag without the risk of criminal charges. I believe that it would be un-American and unconstitutional for the American government to ban acts that deface the flag. I do not agree with individual’s publicly soiling the flag and believe it is unpatriotic and un-American, but because we live in the freest country in the world we are allowed to engage in these acts. It would be hypocritical of the US to rob individuals the right to freely express themselves even if they are expressing their hatred for America.
Over the past decades freedom of speech in the media has become a controversial topic. Individuals from Eminem, Marilyn Manson, and Howard Stern have been ostracized and murdered in the press because they use explicit language and speak about adult themes. These individuals are protected under the first amendment and should not be condemned or have their careers hurt because they portray offensive material. Howard Stern concurred the largest markets in terrestrial radio with his off the wall humor that appealed to millions. He abided by FCC rules and utilized a delay button to block out offensive language but was still murdered by the press. The pressure from sponsors and fines from the FCC forced Clear Channel to drop Howard from all of his syndicated radio stations. Theirer explains; “the threat of regulation led some broadcasters to dump popular radio personalities, including Stern when Clear Channel dropped him from their stations” (Theirer). The FCC is still not satisfied with current media restrictions and “have been pushing for increased regulation of media business practices and ownership patterns (Theirer). Its movements and policy makers like that that keep creeping in and slowly remove the rights of US citizens. Some believe that these groups and the government are passing tougher restrictions for the media because it is getting too big and powerful due to technological advances.
Anyone who cares about the First Amendment and press freedom should find this chilling. Apparently, “Congress shall make no law” abridging press freedom now has several caveats. Congress shall make no law unless they think media is “too big,” or unless they don’t like some of the content they see or hear, or unless they want to investigate newsgathering practices by a major news anchor many congressmen have long despised.
This seems like a slippery slope that the US government is sliding down that could destroy the freedoms that America Prides itself on. Howard Stern is just one example of the thousands that show that the US government is not standing by the first amendment. It is not up to the government to tell me what is indecent and what are appropriate forms of entertainment for myself. It is imperative that the US government and public remain cognizant of the regulations made by groups like the FCC that impede on our freedoms.
http://techliberation.com/2004/10/11/howard-stern-and-the-future-of-media-censorship/
I think some circumstances of the 1st amendment the government is really harsh about. It all depends on the act. As you said the burning of the flag is allowed? I thought people would get in trouble for that.. Howard Stern doesn't get in trouble for saying sexist remarks. However, I remember when Don Imus called a girls basketball team a racist remark there was a HUGEEEE uproar.. I just don't understand what is the difference between what Howard Stern says and what Imus remarked that one time!
ReplyDeleteI remember watching the movie the American President with Michael Douglas and some other famous actress, and within the movie there are pictures of people burning the American flag in protest of something the government was doing. The President (Michael Douglas) made the comment that even though it was distasteful to burn the American Flag, these people were exercising their rights as Americans that they have protected by the First Amendment. I guess it is a catch-22 in a way, because even though it is protected in our Constitution to burn the flag, it's exteremely unpatriotic and it's challenging the institution that gave them the right in the first place...if that makes sense.
ReplyDelete