Day 75: Walking the Talk
This isn’t a new argument, but it’s something that has always struck me as funny. The Bill of Rights grants to us the Freedom of Speech. Now what exactly is covered and not covered isn’t something I want to get into here. Hate speech or sentiments considered unpatriotic are all very complicated topics, and I’m just not well-versed in law or ( Read more... )
I'll respond to your cultural comments, but first a quick note on the difference between regulations of broadcast and regulations of written speech. So far, this really doesn't count the Internet (though they've been trying). But broadcast speech is regulated because of the idea that the broadcast spectrum is a public good. You need a license from the FCC to use it, and thus, the government feels justified in regulating content. They can't regulate anything they want, but the predominant theory is that obscene speech (which has a particular legal definition I won't go into here, but that would except Ginsburg and cover Two Girls and a Cup)and indecent speech (something less than obscene, but not quite - dick and fart jokes)are not in the public interest to protect, so can be kept off the airwaves. Obscene speech can be kept off entirely and indecent speech can be relegated to late hours when "kiddies" don't stand a chance of accidentally turning the dial and catching a glimpse of a cop's fat ass in the shower.
The printed word has no such regulation of indecent speech b/c anyone can print. There's no "privilege" w/ printing that's associated w/ being granted an FCC license, so the gov. has no justification for regulating indecent print. Obscene print can be banned all together b/c it's not technically considered protected "speech" for First Amendment purposes - here you're right above where you note a big factor is the fact that some speech isn't that imagined by the Framers when they wrote up the country's instruction manual.
They have tried doing this with the Internet, but the "limited good" concept doesn't apply. The most success they've had is making sure porno sites post notices that give addresses and phone numbers of where records are kept for the performers so everyone is sure no one is watching minors (if you don't see a 18 USC 2257 link on your porno, it's not kosher. This technically covers even mainstream media content w/ simulated sex scenes, but I won't get into that here). Also, they can make sure content is restricted in libraries and schools and such, at least by making blocking software legal. But that's about it.
So to your point - (and I'm not sure if you're asking it this way, but I think the idea is up there) should the First Amendment place upon us a certain responsibility to live up to the protections it gives?
It's funny you bring it up because I had a spirited debate about this yesterday over lunch with a couple of legal beagles. I drew the comparison between today's popular dramas (CSIs of the world) with the popular dramas during television's incipient youth (Alfred Hitchcock Presents). Both prime time dramas with adult themes and popular actors. But when you compare the language and the quality of the thought (i.e. what the plot makes you think and how it reveals itself vs. how shitty dialogue explains everything to you, having already arrived at the revelation in the first 10 minutes), it really makes you wonder how our brains have "changed."
I say "changed" b/c the end result of my debate yesterday is that it's hard to say our brains have "devolved" necessarily. When Hitchcock was on the air, we still sprayed human beings with fire hoses simply because they demanded basic human rights. Nevertheless, though we have "evolved" in many cultural respects, our communication abilities have fallen by the wayside. The most significant you note above - IM/text and internet memes.
Reply
My answer, and I think you hint at it, is that unlike any other generation before us, it is not necessarily that we have to make a concerted effort to lift our prose and ban popular media (though it'd help), but that we have to make deconstructing the media's messages a part of our children's education.
Our generation is able to do this somewhat because we sort of "grew up" as media grew up, and we've seen how its tricks have come into being. However, we will need to actively help our children to, as you say,
"decide for [themselves] what’s worth becoming a part of [them]."
Reply
Leave a comment