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.
Antea is bad at this making a blog thing: Summary and Response of Susan Jacoby's essay "A First Amendment Junkie"
These women look at this as a disgrace to them, but have they ever put it to mind that these women chose this? She believes that pornography cannot even be defined as to what is obscene or what is art, therefore it cannot be censored. I am a student at the University of South Alabama and a Biomedical Sciences major. 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. 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. This broader definition, the court finds it in contravention with the First Amendment. 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.
Randi Harrell: "A First Amendment Junkie" (Summary & Response)
Susan Jacoby did not necessarily agree with pornography, but she felt that its rights guaranteed under the First Amendment should not be excluded. It is of my strong belief that porn should be protected by the First Amendment only if all parties involved are voluntary consenting adults with no reliance on drugs that could cloud their judgment. 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. She explained the feminists wanting to censor harmful pornography is just the same as other censors who want the state to force ideals on the people. And who gets to say? Ultimately, she believed that censorship of any kind against pornography was wrong. I am for the First Amendment. Because interpretation of the first amendment is sometimes challenged, some court rulings on important cases regarding freedom of speech, religion, and press have changed some perceptions.
Samantha Lee: "First Amendment Junkie" Summary and Response
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. Therefore I believe myself, being somewhat unbiased towards the particular issue at hand, to be a more credible resource than some of my peers. 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. Does that not put these women in pornography under protection of the first amendment as well since it's their physical "freedom of speech"? According to the First Amendment there is a difference between actions and words; although, certain categories of speech are protected especially those concerning children, those protected categories were not included in the CPPA. I also realize that amendments are subject to interpretation, and some court rulings of the years have altered the actual interpretation of this amendment. Susan Jacoby did an excellent job of staying neutral in her views of supporting pornography and primarily focused on presenting the First Amendment rights.
Ja'Vonna: A First Amendment Junkie by Susan Jacoby (Summary and Response)
That is censorship enough. The First Amendment was written by James Madison because the American people were demanding a guarantee of their freedom. Yes, the feminists couldn't make a valid argument, and yes pornography offends some women, but is that really a proper form of free speech? She remarks at how so surprised at what exhibit within movie, shecould believe that they allowed that tohave been shown. For example Howard Stern; has a radio show. She is recognized in the society, especially by women because of writing a reputational essay which reflects her open views and ideas relating to the censorship of pornography in the society. To be honest I do not know if it is really a threat but I do know that some pornography might be offensive to women. Honestly, I see where the feminists are coming from.
