Girls, Women + Media Project

Okay, time's up. (Don't worry, in our most recent very unscientific poll, six out of ten people didn't even come close.)

So with textbook close by, we quote the Founding Fathers (1791) who said: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging freedom of speech or freedom of the press..."

The point of it all? Remember, the young Americans had recently revolted against a country and a government that, shall we say, didn't react well to criticism. The drafters of the Constitution wanted to make sure that Americans could say what they wanted to about the new American government and its leaders without being intimidated (or beheaded!) and that the government was open and tolerant enough to take the heat.
Long story short, we have the First Amendment’s free speech provision.

Sounds simple? It’s not. Over the years, Congress, and state and local governments (which also must abide by the First Amendment,) have passed laws that have "abridged" or restricted speech in many ways that society (well, most of it) has accepted as OK, because, well, we’re trying to avoid hurting and killing people.

So the idea of absolute free speech has never really been true.

Here are examples of speech restrictions that we think are no big deal---you can't yell "fire!" in a crowded movie theater. You can't print an ad that says you're a qualified surgeon just because you watch "E.R."

But it gets more complicated, especially as more people make more of their living from "speech" and expression in the information and entertainment media.

The courts have divided "speech" into several categories deserving different degrees of legal protection. One is "political speech"---which reflects our right to criticize the government and its leaders ("Indict Clinton!" or "Vote for Wanda for President! " are examples of political speech.) The courts believe this type of speech should get the highest degree of protection because, well, that's what democracy is all about.

According to the courts, there is another category besides political speech that also deserves protection, and that is "commercial" (or corporate) speech. When "speech" or expression is done for profit, such as media "products" from the entertainment and information industries—ads, movies, TV, CD’s, etc.---it is called commercial speech.

Remember, there wasn’t a whole lot of media or commercial speech back in 1787, so making the law of now with the Constitution of then is a little tricky. But recent Supreme Court decisions outline it this way:

When the government has a substantial interest in public health and protection, including protecting children, regulating commercial "speech," including advertising and entertainment may be called for---and legal. But the reasons must be pretty darn good (well that’s not exactly how the lawyers phrase it). And very specific legal standards require that regulation must be absolutely as minimal as possible (Note: Some in the conservative faction on the Supreme Court believe that commercial and political speech should be treated the same).

One example is the display of pornography where it is accessible to children. As a society we believe that it’s unhealthy and wrong, so we’re OK with making laws that say no displays of Hustler magazine in the Public Library. (Restrictions on internet access to "adult" material in public libraries has become a more complicated matter.)

Related to this is the legal concept that says if something is "obscene," it gets no First Amendment protection at all. However, the courts rarely call something "obscene" because many feel the category is too subjective.

Other constitutional "speech" issues we face today involve, for example, what to do when entertainment media companies circumvent their own rating systems for marketing adult content to children; what to do when prime time channel surfing includes adult-oriented sex and gratuitous violence; and how states can try to regulate tobacco and alcohol advertising to children.

For those making the legal decisions, and for us in the public, these are issues that have to be weighed carefully, remembering that we are trying to make life better, safer, and healthier, while making sure we live in a society that is tolerant of differing ideas, and even differing ways of making money. These complicated and important decisions and discussions can be easily derailed by exaggerated emotionally charged fears of rampant censorship and totalitarianism.

No one wants a government that shuts down our creativity and our differing opinions; no one wants a totalitarian government.

But balancing public interest, speech and profit interests can be done---as long as we are strongly committed to this complex, important balancing act, and as long as we stay rational!


		(Time to brush up…..) While patriotism may be at an all time high, it's come to our attention that an alarming number of people don't really know a lot about, or understand the idea, of free speech in the Constitution’s First Amendment. Maybe the subject is glossed over in high school history or government classes. Maybe we think if we watch The People vs. Larry Flynt we are learning all we need to know. Not likely…. So, quick quiz: what does the First Amendment provision for free speech actually say? * * * * Okay, time's up. (Don't worry, in our most recent very unscientific poll, six out of ten people didn't even come close.) So with textbook close by, we quote the Founding Fathers (1791) who said: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging freedom of speech or freedom of the press..." The point of it all? Remember, the young Americans had recently revolted against a country and a government that, shall we say, didn't react well to criticism. The drafters of the Constitution wanted to make sure that Americans could say what they wanted to about the new American government and its leaders without being intimidated (or beheaded!) and that the government was open and tolerant enough to take the heat. Long story short, we have the First Amendment’s free speech provision. Sounds simple? It’s not. Over the years, Congress, and state and local governments (which also must abide by the First Amendment,) have passed laws that have "abridged" or restricted speech in many ways that society (well, most of it) has accepted as OK, because, well, we’re trying to avoid hurting and killing people. So the idea of absolute free speech has never really been true. Here are examples of speech restrictions that we think are no big deal---you can't yell "fire!" in a crowded movie theater. You can't print an ad that says you're a qualified surgeon just because you watch "E.R." But it gets more complicated, especially as more people make more of their living from "speech" and expression in the information and entertainment media. The courts have divided "speech" into several categories deserving different degrees of legal protection. One is "political speech"---which reflects our right to criticize the government and its leaders ("Indict Clinton!" or "Vote for Wanda for President! " are examples of political speech.) The courts believe this type of speech should get the highest degree of protection because, well, that's what democracy is all about. According to the courts, there is another category besides political speech that also deserves protection, and that is "commercial" (or corporate) speech. When "speech" or expression is done for profit, such as media "products" from the entertainment and information industries—ads, movies, TV, CD’s, etc.---it is called commercial speech. Remember, there wasn’t a whole lot of media or commercial speech back in 1787, so making the law of now with the Constitution of then is a little tricky. But recent Supreme Court decisions outline it this way: When the government has a substantial interest in public health and protection, including protecting children, regulating commercial "speech," including advertising and entertainment may be called for---and legal. But the reasons must be pretty darn good (well that’s not exactly how the lawyers phrase it). And very specific legal standards require that regulation must be absolutely as minimal as possible (Note: Some in the conservative faction on the Supreme Court believe that commercial and political speech should be treated the same). One example is the display of pornography where it is accessible to children. As a society we believe that it’s unhealthy and wrong, so we’re OK with making laws that say no displays of Hustler magazine in the Public Library. (Restrictions on internet access to "adult" material in public libraries has become a more complicated matter.) Related to this is the legal concept that says if something is "obscene," it gets no First Amendment protection at all. However, the courts rarely call something "obscene" because many feel the category is too subjective. Other constitutional "speech" issues we face today involve, for example, what to do when entertainment media companies circumvent their own rating systems for marketing adult content to children; what to do when prime time channel surfing includes adult-oriented sex and gratuitous violence; and how states can try to regulate tobacco and alcohol advertising to children. For those making the legal decisions, and for us in the public, these are issues that have to be weighed carefully, remembering that we are trying to make life better, safer, and healthier, while making sure we live in a society that is tolerant of differing ideas, and even differing ways of making money. These complicated and important decisions and discussions can be easily derailed by exaggerated emotionally charged fears of rampant censorship and totalitarianism. No one wants a government that shuts down our creativity and our differing opinions; no one wants a totalitarian government. But balancing public interest, speech and profit interests can be done---as long as we are strongly committed to this complex, important balancing act, and as long as we stay rational! HOME
				TALKING TO THE MEDIA: Criticizing (or complimenting) media outlets is USING--not VIOLATING-- First Amendment Rights Remember, the First Amendment talks about what Congress (or other government bodies) can or can't do. When individuals or groups give their comments to the media about the images and messages that become part of our cultural scenery, we’re participating in our culture and in our economy, as we support (or don't support) products and companies according to the messages and products they choose to send us through media. Our dialogue about, and with, companies and media is part of Democratic culture and consumer culture. Consumer feedback can also help businesses better serve their consumers (that’s us!)…and that’s good for business and the economy.