Communication Justice: Personal Libel, Obscenity, and Time/Place Constraints

In one case we read, “Yale Considers Banning Gossip Website”, gossip blogs were writing personal and at times hurtful information about students, and university leaders were considering if they should ban the blogs or not. While these blog writers were exercising their freedom of speech, it has to be asked if they were going too far, and if this type of situation is considered libel.
According to several theories of freedom of speech, this gossip is going too far because it is hurtful to individuals, and so should not be covered by the First Amendment. Thomas Emerson, in the Expression-Action theory, argues that expression but not action is protected, and when it comes to private libel, if the libel hurts an individual’s feelings, it is like an assault. It then shifts from expression to action, and is no longer acceptable. Robert Post, in his “Public Discourse” theory seems to agree, as he argues that people harmed by speech that invades privacy or damages reputations should be allowed legal recourse, as “it provides the social cohesion necessary for the existence of a civilized, humane society,” (pg.443).
So although some people might argue that people have a right to say what they want, in the private world of communities, they still should respect the other people, and do not have a right to invade privacy. And if these words cross over to hurting the other person, the subject has the right to a reply or legal action if necessary.
In a second case, “Nude-photo exhibit too revealing for Idaho State Univ. officials”, an art exhibit was covered because of the nude photographs included. Officials argued that it was obscene, and although it was violating the artist’s freedom of speech, people also have a right to choose not to see the exhibit.
According to Edwin Baker’s Liberty theory, the officials were in the right to cover the photos with black drapes and post signs warning of adult content. This is because “the First Amendment should protect the right of individuals to make their own choices about creating or receiving sexual materials,” (pg.442). For Baker, free speech includes both being able to say, and listen to, what you want. It is a two-way road. Emerson argues that what many would consider obscene should be protected despite current obscene libel laws. Still, he agrees with Baker on one point, that if the receivers of the sexual materials are unwilling receivers, that would be action, and so not protected by free speech.
This means that while the artists do have a right to make these “obscene” exhibits, it is ok for officials to post warning signs and hang drapes, as long as it is only giving the public a choice to view or not. They should not completely censor or ban the materials, though.
A third case, “N. Y. county bill would disperse day-laborer loiterers,” is about a bill waiting to be passed that is attempting to criminalize “standing Latinos”. They argue that while they also want the illegal immigrants off the streets, it is mostly a safety issue, as the laborers waiting for work are congesting the streets and sidewalks, and making people nervous to drive down the streets. The opposing side argues that they are picking on the weakest and most vulnerable, and are racially discriminating, as while patrols are being increased in areas with day laborers, areas with teenage loiterers are ignored.
According to both Emerson and Baker, these “time, place, and manner” (pg.442) restrictions should not be in place. They argue that public places such streets and sidewalks should not be controlled to restrict expression, and Emerson says that any constraints necessary should be administered in a content neutral way (pg.440). Emerson does point out that although public places should not have restrictions on speech, they can be controlled when there is violence, coercion, or when the rights of others are being violated, such as through trespassing.
This would mean that the bill in the day laborer case should not be passed. The officials were not allowing Hispanic day laborers, yet were allowing teens to loiter, which means that the restrictions were not content-neutral. The workers are in a public place, and as long as they do not trespass or create violence, then they have a right to be there.

"Fear Spoils Freedoms Promise"

The most pressing communications justice issues today involve the increased ways we can communicate, through new mediums such as technology, and the increased demand for censorship that comes from this increased communication. As more and more people are able to get thier messages out to the public, such as through blogs, it makes people nervous about what is being said. It is no longer being controlled by a select group of people, so there is more radical and provocative messages out there. This makes some people uncomfortable, and feel that certain types of messages should be censored. McMasters points out the list of messages that people want to be censored is growing. He argues that this is a problem, as it is slowly decreasing our freedom of speech, and if we are not careful, future generations will not have the freedom that our country was built upon.