We live in a society where sex is thought about, but not much talked about. Kids grow up thinking that sex is something wrong or something that they shouldn’t be interested in. Curiosity killed the cat, right? But in reality, thinking about or wanting sex is a biological drive that we are all born with.
It is not hard to go online these days and find material that involves sex, such as porn, nudes, smut, and other items of this nature. Ulysses, written by James Joyce, has been widely disputed over decades because it involves graphic scenes of masturbating, excretion, and sex. Even though certain critics and renowned writers celebrated this book as if it were a masterpiece, the Supreme Court of New York ruled that the book was to be banned. To import, sell, purchase, or publish the book would then officially be committing a crime.
In that case, where is the line drawn between appropriacy and obscenity? If the First Amendment does not protect some obscenity, why does it protect hate speech or speech that incites violence?
America will not defend smutty words but will protect the speech of Nazis and terrorists. Why the double standard?
Justice Douglas and Justice Black both agreed in the Roth v. United States trial that nothing should be censored or banned under the First Amendment. They believed be should be free to indulge in it if we so choose. Unfortunately, other justices did not agree.
However, through the years, obscenity has taken on a new definition that conforms to our modernized ways of living. It is now legal to create, watch, buy, sell, or read certain obscene material if you’re an adult.
Censorship should not be a double standard. If free speech is granted to white nationalists, it should also be granted to people who want to get their freak on. It is biologically ingrained in us as human beings. The government should not be able to decide what to censor or what not to censor, and the more the government takes away our birth-given right of free speech, the more worried and suspicious we should be.