Minow on Supreme Court – Vinny O.

Minow uses this section of the book to give his opinions on Supreme Court cases over the years that have involved censorship of the First Amendment in order to protect children.  The underlying theme throughout these cases is that because obscenity is not protected under the First Amendment that changes needed to be made to not expose those children who had not passed an “emotional threshold.”  Minow summarizes these court decisions, giving his opinion on each.  The main idea is that obscenities are not protected under the First Amendment.  Many of these instances involved stopping schools from allowing students to print articles on abortions.  Personally, I feel that the First Amendment should not be upheld in schools.  Your number one priority as a young child, in school, is to learn and part of that learning is to learn about respect and social etiquette (which can include manners and how one presents themselves in public).  Having the students exposed to sex and every other topic in a non-educational sense (reading Playboy vs. learning about your body in a Health class) is inappropriate and should not be conducted in a state-funded setting.

Denby – Vinny O

I agree with Denby’s analysis of a film’s role.  He takes two sides – having a movie use complexity – or just be idealistic to what is considered good morals.  Growing up in a catholic family, I understand the role of keeping it idealistic.  We are all aware of the gore and horror that exists in the world, but that doesn’t mean we need to subject ourselves to it constantly in movies (and even on TV).  At the same time though, as an artist myself, I believe it should be left to the discretion of the viewer.  If it is about a subject matter that is not comfortable for the view – don’t watch it!  But, as it seems apparent by Denby’s analysis, it’s the old “six of one, half a dozen of the other.”  You’re not going to please everyone – and there are always pros and cons to two different opinions.