Question

we discussed the regulation of media sources, ending on a brief discussion of the notion of regulating "obsene" or "indecent" speech in the form of particular words being considered inappropriate for broadcast (radio and network television). We looked at a performance of George Carlin's "Seven Dirty Words" where he explores the difficulty in regulating language that is in constant change as well as arguing, through humor, that regulation of language is in a sense absurd. When certain words carry a particular emotional charge, how can regulators appropriately control speech in the media. Is it more acceptable to regulate what is considered obscene speech or to regulate other forms of emotional or inappropriate content, such as violence or hate speech?  Is it ever appropriate to regulate speech on the airwaves? When is it appropriate? If you choose to look at the "Seven Dirty Words" performance, please be aware that it can be offensive. If you choose to view it, it can be easily accessed through YouTube.  

Answer 1

In the constitution of United States bill of rights was early 10 amendment. These right ensured civil rights and liberty like the right of just trial and freedom of speech. It also protected the rights of state and people. It was created alone From the constitutional body but it is an important part of the constitution. Bill of rights became effective on 15 December 1791. The main purpose of it was to limit the power of federal government and protected t the rights of peoples, states and immigrants.

if it does not hurt anyone than free speech should not be the matter for peoples. It is the right of every individual to speak what he wants to speak and presents their point of views.

But it is also correct that words filled with hatred not physically harm people but emotional adversely affect them. for example artwork "p*ss Christ" was offensive and unacceptable to many peoples. The writer was not agreed with it but he also states that he is not affected by this. Hence people should leave alone it because it is an artistic manner of expression.

However, if hate groups become a threat to individuals those do not want to accept their ideology. It is crossing the line of freedom of speech. It is not freedom of speech but only the violation of rights if humans. Everyone has the right to speech but it becomes the tool of playing with the emotions of other, scaring and threatening them, then it should be banned.

There are many ways of speeches that are not protected under the law:

Obscenity, child pornography, the real threat, blackmail, defamation etc.

According to the supreme court, it should be acceptable if one is criticizing or speaking against our ideology because it is in the first amendment. some people accept criticism but some are unable to do that.

If anyone is spreading violent ideology and promoting evil things then it should be ban because free speech is okay but if it spread hatred and negative ideology then it is wrong. If one is trying to change the things by spreading and imposing their ideology to other. So it will not help but it will worsen the matter.