Something has been censored. Let's get to those two obligatory statements.

[EternallyBored]

In the US you have the right to do anything from flag burning to repeating the most raucous, foul, hateful neo-nazi speech bullsh*t in public. But if you advocate censorship, then for once it's YOU doing the book burning, not the nazis.

You may disagree. You may be angry. But you should not suppress it.

Besides, all you're doing then is sweeping stuff under the rug and ignoring it...and that's legitimately dangerous.

Hate to break it to you but that's not true, try to stand on time's square and yell nazi propaganda to the crowd, you'll find yourself hauled in for disturbing the peace right quick. Also, none of that Neo-Nazi speech can contain specific threats, you'll be arrested then too. The police have a wide variety of charges they can legally lay on you if you are speaking in public in a manner that disturbs the public.

Same goes for sexually explicit speech, talking about your penis in front of a random minor is not protected by the first amendment, as is other forms of lewd speech. Obscenity laws have been ruled constitutional by the Supreme court. The "seven dirty words" that the FCC can punish broadcasters for still exists, although it now requires repeated use in front of minors, or a minor audience. Hence, you can't go on public television and swear up a storm during primetime.

States are also given a lot of leeway to step in and suppress speech in public areas, and unless the Supreme Court steps in and stops it, then the states will get away with it, and they do regularly. It's only within the last hundred years that the Supreme court has stepped in to enforce Freedom of Speech on the states, or any constitutional amendment, and only does so on a case by case basis. Before that, the Constitution was for the Federal Government, and while states had certain restrictions, they also had a lot of freedom under the 10th amendment. Up until the early to mid 20th century, it was perfectly legal for states to restrict speech in certain circumstances. Even recently, the states got away with creating "free speech zones" outside political conventions in 2004, essentially shunting protesters into small designated areas and restricting their speech on public property around the political convention centers.

While the U.S. has some of the widest freedoms in regards to speech, there are still plenty of restrictions on speech, beyond just dangerous or immediately threatening speech.

That is of course forgetting that private entities restricting speech on their own is another matter entirely. The first amendment also guarantees us the right to free association, while not explicitly enumerated, the Supreme Court has ruled that Free Speech includes the right to associate or disassociate with any private (legal) entity we wish. We can sit around and decry a private business for censorship, but in any attempt to restrict it we are then violating their right to free association, so you end up in a catch 22, if you force a business or individual to not censor in any fashion, you are violating that entities free speech rights in the process. Which is why the Supreme Court does not concern itself with such cases outside of extreme circumstances, because the government coming down on either side ends up censoring someones speech.

 

[Gengisgame]

In the US you have the right to do anything from flag burning to repeating the most raucous, foul, hateful neo-nazi speech bullsh*t in public. But if you advocate censorship, then for once it's YOU doing the book burning, not the nazis.

You may disagree. You may be angry. But you should not suppress it.

Besides, all you're doing then is sweeping stuff under the rug and ignoring it...and that's legitimately dangerous.

This is not in the slightest bit comparable, I understand if you are arguing over your ability to watch it but the rules of censorship do not apply to children.

 

[Leg End]

*snip*

I'm going to TL;DR my response and just say New York is a bad example. She's a bad apple.

This is not in the slightest bit comparable, I understand if you are arguing over your ability to watch it but the rules of censorship do not apply to children.

Which is already a dangerous standard set. Already kids are treated like idiots and assumptions are made which results in the thread topic and I think I'm too tired to even go over this. The parents in any case should have the first and last word.