Lily philips and the disgrace of pornography

[Ken]

Children don’t have the freedom of speech?

Children have more limited rights than adults. This should not be news to you.

Does your 10 year old have the right to drive or open a credit card account? To buy prescription medications? To have medical procedures done without your consent? To buy an assault rifle? To run away from home and live where they choose?

Do they have freedom of speech?

Not as much as adults.

[R7ehr]

The legal reason that child porn is illegal, is not because "children have less freedom of speech than adults". It is deemed illegal because it's creation involves child abuse. And yet a different measure is used for adult porn - "freedom of speech".

Tell me about Roth vs United States and Miller v. California, and mesh that together with New York v Ferber and Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. I mean if you want to argue the brilliant logic and consistency of the matter in order to defend pornography, have at it I guess.

[JohnH]

Do they have freedom of speech?

Not as much as adults.

Are you sure? I'm not aware of any actual restriction of speech (as in what the first amendment is talking about, i.e., political speech or otherwise) where children have "less freedom of speech". Attempts by governments to restrict the speech of children, such as public schools trying to restrict pupils' political speech, have generally failed.

Are there any actual examples of children having "less" freedom of speech than adults?

[ken_sylvania]

Child pornography is illegal because it involves the direct exploitation and abuse of a minor — a person who cannot legally consent. That’s not about moral discomfort. It’s about violated rights and bodily autonomy.

You can believe that pornography is morally wrong and still understand that, legally, adults are allowed to consent to things you may find immoral. That’s the difference between a moral framework and a legal system based on individual rights.

If that is the case, one could expect computer simulated child porn to be legal.

[Ken]

The legal reason that child porn is illegal, is not because "children have less freedom of speech than adults". It is deemed illegal because it's creation involves child abuse. And yet a different measure is used for adult porn - "freedom of speech".

Tell me about Roth vs United States and Miller v. California, and mesh that together with New York v Ferber and Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. I mean if you want to argue the brilliant logic and consistency of the matter in order to defend pornography, have at it I guess.

Nevertheless you asked about freedom of speech generally and not the more limited freedom to produce and distribute porn.

And the simple answer is that children do, indeed, have some First Amendment freedom of speech rights. Just like they have some freedom of religion and freedom of association. But all of those rights are more limited than for adults. Children cannot say whatever they want whenever they want in school classes, for example. The First Amendment doesn't protect the rights of students to act out in class. Nor do your children have a constitutional right to attend a church that you disapprove of, or attend a political gathering that you disapprove of.

Of course freedom of speech isn't an absolute right for anyone, adults or children. Send death threats to the president or campaign loudly for a particular candidate inside a polling place and see if there are limits to your free speech.

[Ken]

Do they have freedom of speech?

Not as much as adults.

Are you sure? I'm not aware of any actual restriction of speech (as in what the first amendment is talking about, i.e., political speech or otherwise) where children have "less freedom of speech". Attempts by governments to restrict the speech of children, such as public schools trying to restrict pupils' political speech, have generally failed.

Are there any actual examples of children having "less" freedom of speech than adults?

Yes, children do not have a Constitutional right to speak out in or otherwise disrupt my class without my permission. I can discipline them for doing so without being afraid of running afoul of their constitutional free speech rights.

And schools commonly do restrict the messages that students are allowed to wear as part of school dress codes. My school bans students from wearing any alcohol, tobacco, or drug messages on their clothes. As well as any gang messages. And the school I used to work at in Texas prohibited students from having any visible tattoos. They had to keep them covered up with clothing or bandages or something. And content in the student newspaper is much more tightly controlled by the school than content in the local newspaper.

[ken_sylvania]

Not as much as adults.

Are you sure? I'm not aware of any actual restriction of speech (as in what the first amendment is talking about, i.e., political speech or otherwise) where children have "less freedom of speech". Attempts by governments to restrict the speech of children, such as public schools trying to restrict pupils' political speech, have generally failed.

Are there any actual examples of children having "less" freedom of speech than adults?

Yes, children do not have a Constitutional right to speak out in or otherwise disrupt my class without my permission. I can discipline them for doing so without being afraid of running afoul of their constitutional free speech rights.

And schools commonly do restrict the messages that students are allowed to wear as part of school dress codes. My school bans students from wearing any alcohol, tobacco, or drug messages on their clothes. As well as any gang messages. And the school I used to work at in Texas prohibited students from having any visible tattoos. They had to keep them covered up with clothing or bandages or something.

Can't a college have those same restrictions on their adult students?

[JohnH]

Yes, children do not have a Constitutional right to speak out in or otherwise disrupt my class without my permission. I can discipline them for doing so without being afraid of running afoul of their constitutional free speech rights.

I'm an adult, and I don't have a right to show up in your classroom (even if I could otherwise legally be there) and speak up and disrupt your class.

And schools commonly do restrict the messages that students are allowed to wear as part of school dress codes. My school bans students from wearing any alcohol, tobacco, or drug messages on their clothes.

The government regularly restricts advertising on behalf of alcohol and tobacco even if it is adults doing it. My state bans outdoor tobacco advertising, other than barns painted before a certain era.

As well as any gang messages. And the school I used to work at in Texas prohibited students from having any visible tattoos. They had to keep them covered up with clothing or bandages or something. And content in the student newspaper is much more tightly controlled by the school than content in the local newspaper.

I'm going to presume that your school also bans adults (students age 18, teachers, janitors, contractors) from doing the same things.

So far none of this draws a distinction people under 18 and over 18.

[Ken]

Are you sure? I'm not aware of any actual restriction of speech (as in what the first amendment is talking about, i.e., political speech or otherwise) where children have "less freedom of speech". Attempts by governments to restrict the speech of children, such as public schools trying to restrict pupils' political speech, have generally failed.

Are there any actual examples of children having "less" freedom of speech than adults?

Yes, children do not have a Constitutional right to speak out in or otherwise disrupt my class without my permission. I can discipline them for doing so without being afraid of running afoul of their constitutional free speech rights.

And schools commonly do restrict the messages that students are allowed to wear as part of school dress codes. My school bans students from wearing any alcohol, tobacco, or drug messages on their clothes. As well as any gang messages. And the school I used to work at in Texas prohibited students from having any visible tattoos. They had to keep them covered up with clothing or bandages or something.

Can't a college have those same restrictions on their adult students?

Private colleges can do whatever they want. They are not the government.

I'm not sure that a public university can ban students from wearing a Budweiser hoodie or baseball cap like most public high schools around the country do. Or that any public university would ever bother to try.

Likewise the public spaces on most public university campuses are more open to free speech than are most public high schools. I can do down to my local public university and advocate for pretty much any cause I want in the middle of the main plaza. I most certainly can't do at the HS were I teach, even though the school has outdoor plazas as well.

[JohnH]

I'm not sure that a public university can ban students from wearing a Budweiser hoodie or baseball cap like most public high schools around the country do. Or that any public university would ever bother to try.

Can a public school do so with pupils once they turn 18?