(Through the media) we are assaulted repeatedly by examples of fathers abandoning their children, businesses duping customers, politicians betraying their trust. Daily radio and television fare consists of people publicly discussing their most private affairs or complaining nonstop about a society out of control. Four-letter words substitute for meaningful discussion and exaggerated presentations scream through our shields of self protection. The First Amendment is to blame. Its forty-five ordinary words grant us license to communicate, even when the subject matter is disgusting, degrading or useless.1
–John Frohnmayer
When the framers of the Bill of Rights drafted the First Amendment, it’s quite likely that they had an entirely different understanding of the concept and function of a free press. The printed word was the only form of mass media known to humankind at that time. Press freedom was important guarantee to ensure the free flow of political views of the day. Future media forms such as film, advertising or radio, all of which emerged after the turn of the twentieth century, introduced new types of communication and artistic content that were unfathomable in the 1700s; yet, these forms of speech and artistic expression also demanded Constitutional protection. And since the 1920s, the First Amendment has been called upon to safeguard the content of other advancements in media technology, such as television programming and––in today’s computer age––the messages transmitted via Internet.
As media forms have become more sophisticated, and messages and entertainment have become more accessible, instantaneous and uncontrollable, it has become increasingly difficult to find universal sympathy for the absolute protection of freedoms contained in the First Amendment. In fact, Frohnmayer (1994) maintains that if there were a national referendum on whether to maintain the First Amendment, a majority of American voters would likely reject the measure!
The second weekly essay should address the following statement using the format provided below.
Proposition:
Some forms of communication and expression should not expect the guarantees of protection offered by the First Amendment.
1John Frohnmayer, Out of Tune: Listening to the First Amendment (Freedom Forum, 1994), p. 1.
Introduction. Your paper should have an introductory paragraph, which will serve as the thesis of your essay. Here, state whether you agree or disagree with the proposition statement and outline the basis for your argument.
Historical Context. From your textbook, class lectures and other sources, provide a historical overview of 1) the development of film, 2) advertising and 3) radio, and the new social issues these new forms of media brought about. Make sure this section provides some in-depth discussion of how these forms of communication created unprecedented types of media content.
Modern Context. Provide an example of modern forms of communication or expression that you believe are questionable in terms of their potential for First Amendment protection. This could include the content of a radio talk show, suggestive material obtained via the Internet, magazines, advertising...whatever you find, make sure you are able to justify your choice as being a test of the concept of free expression. Describe the content in your paper.
Conclusion. In this portion of your paper, discuss what you believe would happen to our system if we decided to abridge the First Amendment. Make this insightful. Consider all consequences, especially how you believe this would affect your career. What can media professionals do to ensure that their First Amendment rights are not abridged?
To prepare your paper, follow the guidelines from last week’s essay assignment.
This paper will be due on Friday, July 17, at the start of class. Note the policy concerning late work.