Feinberg Summary

Feinberg offers an alternate. He argues that the harm principle cannot bear all of the labour required for a principle of free speech. In some instances, Feinberg suggests, we also require an offense principle that can direct social censure. The central idea is that the harm principle is too narrow and that we can rightfully forbid some forms of expression as they are highly offensive. Offending a person is less serious than harming him, so the punishment given should be less harsh than that for causing harm. He argues that any offensive matter that cannot be avoided should be banned. If it can be avoided than there is no need to banish it. But this principle when applied to the online world would mean that because any offensive material on …show more content…
Its case becomes more interesting as there will hardly be a country in this world that has defended its right to freedom of expression more vigorously and passionately then the USA has done. Since its foundation, the country has been home to zealous defenders of free speech. One of the founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson had declared that “a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.” USA’s right to free speech is enshrined in First Amendment to the American Constitution which prohibits the making of any law abridging the freedom of speech or of press. This right is not absolute, obviously, since there are exceptions like when the speech is inciting to do lawless action, or it is obscene or visually depicts child pornography or is intellectual property of someone else or has fighting words. But more or less, since the First Amendment, the USA’s Supreme Court has resisted any unreasonable or strict restriction on First Amendment and whenever possible given narrow interpretation to the exceptions to First …show more content…
Most works accused of being obscene usually passed the test as the work could be shown having some artistic or literary value. In United States v Thomas was the first case of pornographic distribution in cyberspace. The law for the first time would become aware of how little control or influence it held over the Net and its inhabitants. But what happens when the Internet comes into picture. Miller’s test was difficult to apply as it presented three difficulties chiefly: what is local community standard in nonphysical entity ? What will be defines as work in question? What about the jurisdiction as the country of origin of offensive matter may be foreign? The first challenge can be overcome by defining a virtual community standard. The ‘work’ can also be defined. But the jurisdiction problem is still there and all those who have affection for platform for truly free speech provided by the Internet should be thankful for it. If governments had well-defined jurisdiction over internet too, it would not have been accorded the status of messiah of free

Show More

R. V. Keegstra : in Support of the Dissent Essay

article review Essay

British Petroleum (Bp) Case Study Essay

Essay on Macy's Strategy

Essay on contaminated water

Acute CHF ICU Essay