Freedom Of Speech: The Right To Impart And The Right To Receive Information.

According to the SCOTUS, and the First Amendment, the right to freedom of expression in art include both the right to create, and to view. If you don't like Michelangelo's David, tough. Then don't go to that museum. You still can see it in the window when you walk by? Still, tough, most people would say.

But the right gets more thorny and complicated, as the situation changes. You have a right to view it in your home. But you shouldn't deliberately display pornographic material to those who don't wish to see it, because then you are violating their rights. I have always agreed with that statement. Even in your own home, that is true. Of course you have more rights to view materials like that in your own home. Because it's your home. Read the Fourth Amendment. But, sometimes the issue gets more complicated. And sometimes it gets a little silly perhaps.

There is reckless intent. Manslaughter is killing with reckless intent. You didn't mean to do it, you didn't even know you'd do it. But knew what you were doing was dangerous. You shouldn't view explicit material where you obviously know people will see it, because the intent is basically the same. Reckless. But how likely is it you know someone will see it?

A while back in Michigan, someone was in the back seat of a car viewing a porn movie. He obviously knew drivers on the road could see it. So he got in trouble. A little while before that, a couple got in trouble. They recorded a porn video on a small camcorder they had (this was about 20/25 years ago). Then they forgot they left it in the camera. When they returned the camcorder to the store, someone else saw it. And they got in trouble. The authorities were investigating. That's the last I heard of that case. But was their intent reckless? Or just careless? Think about it.

Alan Dershowitz thinks he should be able to read his Hustler magazine on an airplane. Some people would disagree with that. But Hustler is just a political satire magazine. And he'd just be reading the articles. And if someone accidentally saw a picture as he was flipping the page? Why were they looking over his shoulder to begin with?

In some cases the motives of the censors is very obvious. Anthony Comstock was appointed US postal inspector from 1873 to 1907. And he believed that it was his job to keep information about contraception from the hands of children. But he really just didn't want even adults to have that information. I think that is obvious now.

Some issues involving nudity are complex, because they really don't involve sex at all. Nudists think that they should be able walk around naked in public anywhere. Because why would anyone have a problem with the human body? I didn't agree with them in the past. I did always understand their position on that though. And I am beginning to rethink my position on that issue now too.