Freedom of Expression and Sedition Paper’s choice

Freedom of Expression and Sedition
Author’s Name:
Institutional Affiliation:
It is part of human nature to invent new ways to inflict pain on one another. Speech has been recognized as one of the main ways through which people hurt one another. According to the supreme court of the US, speech remains protected by the First Amendment. An exception to this is if the communication remained traditionally unprotected. Based on this law, a lot of harm can be done without any legal remedy. This has been experienced through revenge pornography. Revenge pornography involves posting on public media sexually explicit images as a way of achieving revenge against an ex-lover. This subjects the victim to embarrassment, harassment, sexual assault threats, and stalking. It also affects the ability of the victim to secure a decent job or school. This essay focuses on recent developments on “Freedom of Expression and Sedition” and the effects on the first amendment.
Several states have laws that prohibit revenge pornography. Their constitutionality is, however, questionable because they restrict speech based on its content which is invalid. Though there are exceptions to content-based restrictions, it has been held by the court that actions such as child pornography, threats, criminal conspiracies, criminal solicitations, political incitement, obscenity, private figure defamation, and threats are not protected by the first amendment. (Calvert, 2013). These exceptions are however not applicable to this case, and new exceptions cannot be introduced because they will not have been traditionally unprotected (Koppelman, 2015).

In California, there was a landmark revenge pornography case where a woman in Los Angeles was awarded 6.4 million US dollars by the District Court. In this case, the woman had initiated legal proceedings against a former partner who went to share her explicit photographs on pornographic websites. Additionally, the images were also shared with her professional and personal acquaintances (Connellan, 2018). This ruling can be considered unconstitutional because it contradicts the first amendment. The ruling was in line with the judgment passed in the case of Gitlow v. New York. In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction citing that the state government had authority to suppress certain rights of speech protected by the first amendment. The bans on revenge porn by state governments, therefore, presents controversial limitations on free speech that is guaranteed by the first amendment and Supreme Court precedent.
References
Calvert, C. (2013). Revenge porn and freedom of expression: Legislative pushback to an online weapon of emotional and reputational destruction. Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. LJ, 24, 673.
Connellan, S. (2018, April 12). Woman is awarded $6.4 million in one of the largest revenge porn cases ever. Retrieved December 10, 2018, from https://mashable.com/2018/04/12/revenge-porn-case-california/#wnDM4_.25iqZ
Koppelman, A. (2015). Revenge Pornography and First Amendment Exceptions. Emory LJ, 65, 661.