A First Amendment Junkie Essay, Research Paper

Susan Jacoby?s, ? A First Amendment Junkie, ? is an extremely well written and

sound argument in which readers can clearly understand the purpose. From the title, ? A

First Amendment Junkie, ? she gets the readers attention and even forces them to ask the

question: What is a ? A First Amendment junkie? ?

It is clear as early as the end of the first paragraph Jacoby?s thesis or major claim-

that censorship of any form is wrong. At the beginning of the second paragraph she states

her belief, ? … in an absolute interpretation of the First Amendment, ? from which comes

the idea of a ? First Amendment junkie. ? Also, the readers get a sense of her persona

when she stated that, ? Many woman I like and respect tell me I am wrong… ? -we see

that she?s just another person.

It is evident that readers and even feminist that advocates censorship of

pornography must put aside or control ones sense of emotion or pathos; so that it does not

overshadow Jacoby?s view ( that is stated ) and will work towards, as well as illustrate to

the readers sense of logos from which the purpose of her argument gets its life. There are

several reasons that Jacoby states that makes her argument sound, such as:

censorship of pornography by faminist is contradictory, kiddie porn is child abuse and not

Mathew 2

a First Amendment issue but an issue of conduct, and the solution is for individuals, not

the government to limit the First Amendment but rather to take on an active role in

teaching young people what is appropriate to watch or look at on TV, movies, and

magazines.

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

that are of vital concern to woman: rape, abortion, menstruation, contraception,

lesbianism-in fact, the entire range of sexual experience from a woman?s viewpoint. ?

?If feminists want to argue that the protection of the Constitution should not be

extended to any particularly odious or threatening form of speech, they have a resonable

argument (although I don?t agree with it). But it is ridiculous to suggest that the porn

shops on 42nd Street are more disguesting to woman then a march of neo-Nazis is to

survivors of the extermination camps.? The contradiction is that faminist can not yell

censorship for pornography witout yelling cenorship to all and that?s the bottom line.

Kiddie porn is child abuse and not a First Amendment issue but an issue of

conduct on the part of people you abuse there power as adults. This is also an excellent

rebutal to those feminists that use the example of ? kiddie porn ? to censor pornography.

Jacoby?s makes a coralation with explotied children that used to work in coal mines and

those in kiddie porn and that the responsible adults should be prosecuted. This is one of

the main reason in which individuals should take on an active role in teaching young

people what is appropriate to watch or look at on TV, movies, and magazines.

Mathew 3

Responsible adults and not the calling of the government to limit the First

Amendment right to free speech is the only way in which we can teach all people how to

tolerate ? threatening forms of free speech. ? As the late Justice Hugo L. Black said that

?the Federal Governmnet is with out any power whatsoever under the Constitution to put

any type of burden on free speech and expression of ideas of any kind ( as distinguished

from conduct. )?