A first amendment junkie by susan jacoby summary. EH 102 2022-11-04
A first amendment junkie by susan jacoby summary Rating:
In "A First Amendment Junkie," Susan Jacoby argues that the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech, religion, and the press in the United States, is frequently misused and misinterpreted by both individuals and the government.
Jacoby begins by explaining the history and purpose of the First Amendment, which was written to protect citizens from government censorship and to ensure that citizens had the right to express their opinions freely. However, she asserts that the First Amendment is often used as a shield for those who wish to spread hate or misinformation, rather than as a means of promoting open and honest debate.
One of the main points Jacoby makes is that the First Amendment does not protect all forms of speech, and that there are limits to what can be said without consequences. She cites examples such as shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, which can cause panic and harm to others, and hate speech, which is not protected under the First Amendment.
Jacoby also discusses the concept of "political correctness," which she defines as the attempt to avoid language or behavior that might offend certain groups of people. She argues that while it is important to be considerate of others' feelings, the idea of political correctness has been taken to an extreme and used as a way to silence dissenting opinions and stifle free speech.
Throughout the essay, Jacoby advocates for a more nuanced and balanced approach to the First Amendment. She argues that while the right to free speech is crucial to a healthy democracy, it must be used responsibly and not as a means of spreading hate or misinformation. She also suggests that society needs to have more open and honest discussions about the limits of free speech and what is acceptable behavior, rather than simply relying on the First Amendment as a blanket defense.
In conclusion, Jacoby's "A First Amendment Junkie" is a thought-provoking and timely examination of the role of free speech in modern society. She challenges readers to consider the ways in which the First Amendment is used and misused, and to think critically about the limits of free speech.
Randi Harrell: "A First Amendment Junkie" (Summary & Response)
Leaving students ignorant to world problems, however, is argued by Sonja West that it removes their first amendment rights and creates a future working-class of Americans who are clouded from the truth. While the First Amendment affords us the right to free speech, it does not always mean we must use our free speech. While agreeing that the content of pornography condones the objectionable treatment of women, Ann Garry was one of the first to question whether pornography should be held responsible for pervasive gender-based violence and discrimination. Susan Jacoby, a journalist for the New York Times, and author of "A First Amendment Junkie", wrote this columnadamantlybelieving in the rights stated in the First Amendment, even on the issue of pornography. The protest that the feminists held was because they thought they were expressing their right of free speech, but can't pornography be a right free speech just like their protest. I think Jacoby pointing out the inconsistency of the feminists wanting to limit freedom of speech for only certain offensive speech was a great point.
I am a student at the University of South Alabama and a Biomedical Sciences major. The difficult part is how find a schedule for everything, because in world as it is today, money is the one that talks, not morals, not education. Why Should The First Amendment To Be The Most Important 595 Words 3 Pages Many people often use the first amendment to get away with committing horrible and despicable crimes. Argumentative Essay On Media Censorship In The Media 1292 Words 6 Pages An Argumentative Essay on Media Censorship Censorship is a control over unacceptable sources found in all forms of media: such as, newspapers, television, and the Internet. I believe that Jacoby is right. She believes it is a violation when it comes to the first amendment.
Pornography and the Media Contribute to the Oppression of Women. She believes that the First Amendment should be absolutely interpreted. I have two sisters, I'm the middle child. The First Amendment was written by James Madison because the American people were demanding a guarantee of their freedom. She believes child pornography has very high risk to endanger and threat innocent children, and she believes child pornography increase risk that cause damage for children, it is very ridiculous in her vision. In the eyes of feminists, all types of pornography will undoubtedly lead to violence, destruction, and the immoral downfall of mankind, as we know it.
In "A First Amendment Junkie" written by Susan Jacoby, a New York Times journalist, the point is argued that first amendments rights can't be restricted in instances that you find offensive, particularly referring to feminists wanting to censor pornography. The First Amendment should be limited so that individuals can speak their mind so long as it does not hurt other people, or violates their rights. Black said that the Federal Governmnet is with out any power whatsoever under the Constitution to put any type of burden on free speech and expression of ideas of any kind as distinguished from conduct. The feminist group mainly focused on the offensive nature of pornography. While it is offensive to many people, they have the choice not to view it. Jacoby believes that these women are absurd to hold the belief that pornography is the most offensive example of free speech, when neo-Nazis are marching through neighborhoods inhabited by holocaust survivors.
Also, the readers get a sense of her persona when she stated that, Many woman I like and respect tell me I am wrong… — we see that shes just another person. She uses the example of the Holocaust and the Nazis to show how pornography is not as bad as this event or these evil people. Jacoby closes by sharing a personal experience following the viewing of a movie. Some would argue for censorship, but then ultimately who would get to decide which topics should be censored and which ones should not. Jacoby first states that she has received hate from feminists for her stance and comments on pornography. You have to go looking for pornography, or either you are warned with a cover on a magazine or the rating of a movie. Censorship of pornography by faminist is contradictory in that they will help endorse antifeminists to censor discussions and literature about the very things or issues hat are of vital concern to woman: rape, abortion, menstruation, contraception, lesbianism-in fact, the entire range of sexual experience from a womans viewpoint.
And who gets to say? This is also an excellent rebutal to those feminists that use the example of kiddie porn to censor pornography. If we change it, it will only leave more grey areas that people will dispute over. She believes the work that Larry Flynt creates is useless and worthless, but she also believes what Flynt says is unconstitutional limitation of freedom of speech. For instance Jacoby says people always compare kiddie porn to adult porn but those two are just not in the same lane because it is not a first amendment issue. After reading the article "A First Amendment Junkie" by journalist Susan Jacoby, I completely agree with her argument.
Free Essay: "A First Amendment Junkie" by Susan Jacoby.
Jacoby is a huge activist for freedom speech, so she natural contradicted, when the topic of censoring pornography. In other words, the matter of minors or adults being forced into this industry unwillingly and even forced into drugs. Stanley Fish presents his main argument about how people misuse this amendment for all their conflicts involving from racial issues to current political affairs in his article, Free-Speech Follies. This broader definition, the court finds it in contravention with the First Amendment. When Jacoby says it is a violation when it comes to the First amendment, I agree. Whomever would be in charge of deciding what topics should be censored eventually would find a topic to which you or I would hold a valid opinion on thus limiting our right to free speech. Jacoby makes a strong point in saying that American Nazi groups marching in a town that has extermination camp survivors living there is way worse and more offensive than pornography.
I am not arguing that we should all be quiet, but we should, however, take into consideration the concerns and feelings of others when we exercise our First Amendment rights. However, she then argues that the First Amendment was not established to protect obscene images. A Female for the First. In the essay Jacoby talks about how she showed women photos from playboy and Penthouse and how she got a range of different responses to them. She claims that these feminists, "want to use the power of the state to accomplish what they have been unable to achieve in the marketplace of ideas and images. She argues that people need to reevaluate and take another look at the First.
Meredith Wyatt: "A First Amendment Junkie" Summary
Barnet, Sylvan and Hugo Bedaw. Trying to appeal to feminists that pornography is protected under the First Amendment is almost an impossibility. While these are some reasons why art censorship can be justified, I will also be discussing a counter-argument to these reasons, which is that society should not shoot down views and opinions based solely on a minority that does not approve of them. She believes that the First Amendment should be absolutely interpreted. Throughout Susan Jacoby's essay, she makes it very. In regards to this matter, I will argue that pornography should be censored and socially and legally controlled, due to its immoral content which harms women and violates their right to free speech. .