In "Paris Adult Theater I v. Slaton (1973)," Chief Justice Burger argues that the states have the right to "regulate the occasion of obscene materials" (79), as long as that regulation does not fly in the face of paperally-guaranteed freedoms of lecture and privacy. In reservation this argument, Burger makes a number of statements which comprise the illusion of ambiguity. For example, he refers to "the have-to doe with of the public in the quality of life and the total partnership environment" (79), "the public safety" (79), "the right . . . to maintain a decent society" (80), and "the affable interest in ordering and morality" (80). None of these terms are clearly defines, and thus far they form an valuable part of Burger's legal and moral rule for controlling obscene material.
Burger uses these terms of ambiguity because, despite their vagueness and unquantifiable nature, they til now carry a suggested power which appeals to the reader's sense of morality, of what's "right," of what's "good." The fact is that the Constitution is quite clear about freedom of speech and privacy, and in that respect is no mention in the Bill of Rights of qualifications for those freedoms, as Douglas writes in his dissent. Burger uses ambiguity because these powerful if vague words evoke in the reader the impression that thither are more important t
Judge Pell, in "Collin v. metalworker (1978)," argues that the attempt by the city of Skokie, Illinois, to prevent the Nazis from marching is not Constitutional. He argues that we may not like Nazis, but we cannot lawfully prevent them from enjoying the protection of the Bill of Rights. In making his argument, Pell commits the fallacy of neglecting relevant evidence. Specifically, he says that we cannot bar Nazis from expressing their views because "under the First Amendment there is no such thing as a sham idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its rectification not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the contender of other ideas" (99).
This neglects the fact that if somebody expresses the idea that the prexy should be shot, he will be immediately arrested. natural law will "correct" such an idea, not waiting for "the competition of other ideas" (99).
hings in society than protecting the freedom of speech of masses who would abuse such freedoms and undermine the community and its moral---even its commercial---structure. The forces of censorship which Burger represents must resort to ambiguity because---except in rare cases---there is no effective argument against free speech.
Hobbes commits this fallacy because the argument contained in it is absolutely crucial to his argument for the necessity of the monarch and the social contract. After all, if it can be shown that human beings are sufficient of behaving the right way and rightly with one another without the oversight of the sovereign power with whom they have entered into a contract, then Hobbes' whole doctrine as expressed in Leviathan is seriously threatened. The fact is, of course, that people left on their own in isolated situations where no sovereign power oversees them do indeed behave justly and rightly and civilly, and they do so without the fear of punishment if they behaved otherwise. plainly Hobbes, again, cannot allow for such self-policing because to do so would undermine hi
Ordercustompaper.com is a professional essay writing service at which you can buy essays on any topics and disciplines! All custom essays are written by professional writers!
No comments:
Post a Comment