Censorship
Censorship | The Free Speech Rights of Abortion Protesters Should Not Be Restricted
The abortion protesters who were behind the Nuremberg Files—a website that publicized personal information about abortion providers—were engaging in protected speech and should not have been found guilty of making threats, argues Robyn Blumner in the following viewpoint. The protesters did not make any explicit threats of violence against the abortion providers, she contends, and therefore their speech is protected. A verdict that finds that the protesters should have known that the doctors would feel threatened by the website places an unmanageable burden upon the speaker to know...
[The entire page is 1135 words long]
Navigate
- Introduction
-
Chapter 1: Should the Right to Free Speech Be Restricted?
- Government Censorship Would Benefit Society
- Speech Should Not Be Restricted
- Hate Speech Should Be Banned
- Hate Speech Should Not Be Banned
- Flag Desecration Should Be Banned
- Flag Desecration Should Not Be Banned
- The Free Speech Rights of Abortion Protesters Should Be Restricted
- The Free Speech Rights of Abortion Protesters Should Not Be Restricted
-
Chapter 2: Should Pornography Be Censored?
- Pornography Should Be Censored
- Pornography Should Not Be Censored
- The Federal Government Can Regulate Internet Pornography
- Federal Regulation of Internet Pornography Is Unconstitutional
- Internet Pornography Should Have Its Own Domain
- A Separate Domain for Internet Pornography Would Violate Free Speech
- Chapter 3: Should Schools and Libraries Practice Censorship?
- Chapter 4: Should the Arts and Entertainment Industries Be Censored?
- Organizations to Contact
- Bibliography
- Copyright
Tell a friend about Censorship at eNotes.
