Introduction
Amendment 1 of the US Constitution states that the “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” (US Government Printing Office 1013). The exercise of this freedom has at times seen its interpretation being stretched to the limits of normal moral ethical behavior as well as attempts to limit such a freedom. The question therefore arises whether Pornography or Obscenity deserves protection under the First Amendment.
Discussion
Proponents of ethical behavior argue that pornography debases and has been a catalyst in encouraging crimes against women. Because Pornography appeals to baser human instincts, it has a wider following and tremendous commercial success which then encourages women to take up prostitution as a profession. Pornography is easily available, even to under aged children and that serves to corrupt their impressionable souls, feeding wild juvenile fantasies and possibly leads to deviant social behavior with its concomitant effect on the larger society. Thus, in their view Pornography deserves no protection under the First Amendment and must be banned.
The proponents of the First Amendment argue that it is very difficult to define what is pornography and obscenity. Both terms are subjective in nature and because no precise definitions exist, a blanket ban will only serve to limit the freedom of expression and indeed lead to the death of a free society as promised by the Constitution. Consequently, proponents of Pornography have been hauled to courts on a number of occasions. The most famous case was Hustler Magazine, Inc., v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988) case in which The Hustler had portrayed a parody of a Campari advertisement in which Jerry Falwell, a well known evangelical figure was shown to ‘state’ that he had an incestuous relationship with his mother while drunk. Falwell lost his case for invasion of privacy, libel, and intentional infliction of emotional distress in the US Supreme court which upheld the Hustler magazine right to publish a parody under the First Amendment. Since then Courts have sought to limit the First Amendment under the Obscenity exception as Saunders observes that “The Supreme Court has recognized several categories of speech that are unprotected by the amendment” (46). This observation however has been found to be extremely difficult to legally uphold.
The obscenity exception applies to child pornography and other acts or depictions in any literary expression that may be construed as obscene. In the age of internet, enforcing restrictions is impossibility, a fact recognized by the US Supreme court which struck down a 10 year old anti-child pornography law. “In striking down the law on free-speech grounds, the justices said parents could protect their children by installing software filters on their computers” (Savage para 2).
Conclusion
In conclusion, it can be summarized that while pornography and obscenity have their negative side effects on the society, the present recourse to protect the right to freedom of expression under the First Amendment may be the best option to preserve the free society and the individual ‘pursuit of happiness’ which is the epitome of the American way of life.
Works Cited
Saunders, Kevin W. Violence as Obscenity: Limiting the Media’s First Amendment Protection. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1996.
Savage, David G. “Supreme Court lets Internet porn law die.” 2009. LA Times. Web.
US Government Printing Office. First Amendment- Religion and Expression. 2002. Web.