The First Amendment, as cited in the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the United States of America, declares, "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech."" As a result of this clause in the United States (US) Constitution, many people conflict on its meaning and its use. With a new medium brought into the swing of things in the form of the Internet, a particularly spiky subject with conservatives comes up, pornography. Should pornography be restricted or not? Nina George Hacker and Brock N. Meeks offer their opposing views regarding pornography restrictions.
Nina George Hacker believes that pornography over the Internet should be restricted with the article entitled "Internet Pornography Should Be Restricted-. Under the notion that the Founding Fathers of the US would not appreciate the use of the First Amendment of the US Constitution to justify the publication of pornography, Hacker believes that the First Amendment was, "designed to protect political speech "not demoralizing filth "in a democratic society-(1). To support Hacker's beliefs with historical evidence, Hacker cites that in Roth vs. the United States n 1957, the Supreme Court declared that obscenity has never been constitutionally protected speech (1). In another court case cited by Hacker, the 1973 Miller vs. California case established a three-point test for judging illegal obscenity. It said that the average person, applying adult community standards, must find that the work in question:.
Appeals to a lewd, abnormal, or degrading interest in nudity, sex, or excretion.
Depicts or describes sexual or excretory acts in an obviously offensive way.
Lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Hacker defines illegal obscenity as materials characterized by its graphically explicit portrayal of both normal and perverted sex, including acts involving children, which is now illegal in all 50 states.
