That was the point of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell: True freedom of speech has to include speech that the authorities find objectionable, or that the majority doesn’t like, no matter if it’s vulgar or politically unpopular or simply a bad take. Regardless, we have to be free to express it.
Granted, there are typically some exceptions recognized in 20th-century industrialized nations, including fascist content, extreme racism, calls to violence and information hazards (e.g. instructions on making drugs or building explosive devices).
Tangent on CSAM
Child Sexual Assault Material or CSAM provides a weird gray zone. CSAM is universally illegal when it is produced by actually endangering or harming children. But art that depicted CSAM yet doesn’t actually involve children may not be, especially, if it has artistic value or is thought-provoking. During the 20th and 21st centuries, content featuring child sexuality slips in and out of legality depending on the era, on local ordinance and sometimes even whether a police officer, DA or judge decides possession is criminal in a given case. 70’s coming of age porn fiction became illegal in the 80s. Japanese lolicon (and its knockoffs) from the 1990s became illegal in the aughts (at least in red states. Blue states still sometimes interpreted it as art). CGI content has always been a gray zone, and currently AI slop of CSAM is legal, not because culture has changed but because the controllers of the AI technology have incredible influence on the federal government.
Curiously, when political speech and freedom of the press is restricted, it is consistently pressure from the right, whether conservative universities designating free speech zones or the police trying to kettle the press (and put down independent journalists who aren’t backed by the legal branch of a major news agency) during civil unrest such as the 2014 Ferguson Unrest after the slaying of Michael Brown.
In the 21st century, beats around the federal government weren’t blatantly regulated until Trump, but those who kept officials in good light and refused to publish embarrassing stories were definitely given privileged positions. Hence during the Iraq War, we had to rely on foreign news to learn about the torture, the war crimes, the use of PMCs and so on, just as we have to rely on independent media today.
But in a properly liberal society (not to be confused with a neoliberal society such as 20th century US and the EU), the press needs to be independent and allowed to publish the truth no matter how embarrassing it might be to the state or its officials.
That was the point of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell: True freedom of speech has to include speech that the authorities find objectionable, or that the majority doesn’t like, no matter if it’s vulgar or politically unpopular or simply a bad take. Regardless, we have to be free to express it.
Granted, there are typically some exceptions recognized in 20th-century industrialized nations, including fascist content, extreme racism, calls to violence and information hazards (e.g. instructions on making drugs or building explosive devices).
Tangent on CSAM
Child Sexual Assault Material or CSAM provides a weird gray zone. CSAM is universally illegal when it is produced by actually endangering or harming children. But art that depicted CSAM yet doesn’t actually involve children may not be, especially, if it has artistic value or is thought-provoking. During the 20th and 21st centuries, content featuring child sexuality slips in and out of legality depending on the era, on local ordinance and sometimes even whether a police officer, DA or judge decides possession is criminal in a given case. 70’s coming of age porn fiction became illegal in the 80s. Japanese lolicon (and its knockoffs) from the 1990s became illegal in the aughts (at least in red states. Blue states still sometimes interpreted it as art). CGI content has always been a gray zone, and currently AI slop of CSAM is legal, not because culture has changed but because the controllers of the AI technology have incredible influence on the federal government.
Curiously, when political speech and freedom of the press is restricted, it is consistently pressure from the right, whether conservative universities designating free speech zones or the police trying to kettle the press (and put down independent journalists who aren’t backed by the legal branch of a major news agency) during civil unrest such as the 2014 Ferguson Unrest after the slaying of Michael Brown.
In the 21st century, beats around the federal government weren’t blatantly regulated until Trump, but those who kept officials in good light and refused to publish embarrassing stories were definitely given privileged positions. Hence during the Iraq War, we had to rely on foreign news to learn about the torture, the war crimes, the use of PMCs and so on, just as we have to rely on independent media today.
But in a properly liberal society (not to be confused with a neoliberal society such as 20th century US and the EU), the press needs to be independent and allowed to publish the truth no matter how embarrassing it might be to the state or its officials.