james@bigtex.uucp (James Van Artsdalen) (05/03/88)
IN article <639@eos.UUCP>, barry@eos.UUCP (Kenn Barry) wrote: > [..] The only explicit, > recognized legal exception in the US to the rule against censorship is > the exception made for pornography. Advertising is an example of "true speech" that may be regulated. The ban on broadcast of tobacco adds comes to mind, as do FDA powers of regulation of "true speech". Also, the FCC has power to affect operation of newspapers, even though newspapers do not constitute a "scarce resource". Porn is only a minor example, and not even the most bothersome to me. > I really don't know what the Founding Fathers' > attitudes toward the broader question of general freedom of artistic > expression was, but modern interpretations hold that such freedom is > guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. The argument might well be made that 1st amendment only applies to political speech and not artistic speech. Certainly the latter is far more regulated than the former. I believe the only absolute freedom of speech is that made in the congress, and even there congress itself may limit actions of its members. For example, a congressman is exempt from libel laws, but only if said libel occurred as part of the function of congress. All speech made in congress is presumed to be political... > Couple of points: first, libel laws are not the same as > censorship. There is no question of prior restraint in libel cases; [...] libel also does not impinge upon "true speech". > [...] But I also think that the specific guarantee of > free expression in the US Constitution is an important part of our > defenses against tyranny, along with the Supreme Court which provides > the mechanism for enforcing that guarantee. [...] Hmm... Remember a president named Jackson and the (American) Indians. The courts have no enforcement power of their own: ONLY that granted them by the president and congress. If the latter choose not to enforce any given ruling (a political impossibility these days), this is no recourse. The constitution places the judiciary as an *equal* branch of government with congress and the president, not placed above as some final arbiter of issues. This "final arbiter" business was a creation of the court itself, and has stood the test of time as a useful way for the government to function. > As for the net, I'd like to see more explicit guarantees of free > expression for it, eventually. It's such an anarchy that censorship is > currently a practical impossibility, and court tests might do more harm > than good at present. No court tests likely. 1st amendment applies to governments, not individuals. While the courts might wink at that and ban race discrimination, certainly no one will ever contest discrimination by obnoxiousness. -- James R. Van Artsdalen ...!ut-sally!utastro!bigtex!james "Live Free or Die" Home: 512-346-2444 Work: 328-0282; 110 Wild Basin Rd. Ste #230, Austin TX 78746