Do you have a convincing argument for why obscene speech should not be protect by the first amendment?

That's the justification used in Ferber but in 96 they passed the CPPA which included any visual depiction e.g., drawings.
Supreme court struck it down 2002 so congress passed the PROTECT Act in 2003 which added an obscenity requirement for depictions that don't involve a real child.
The obscenity charge has been upheld in cases like U.S. v. Handley and U.S. v. Whorley.
>this same reasoning was used by feminists in the 80s who wanted porn banned as a civil rights violation
Yes it's similar to arguments made by anti-pornography and anti-hate-speech groups.
I think this is good discussion of it, though it is from 2001 so it's out of date.
scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3304&context=penn_law_review

Thanks for the journal article. I forgot about PROTECT Act (another of those Orwellian law names we seem to be having more of) and how anti-porn the DOJ was when Ashcroft was attorney general, feels like forever ago.

No

>Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today
The government makes the best backronyms.

No. But there could be some kind of fine for it if you say it in public

literally who is even arguing for this?

The courts.

because trying to define something as broad as "obscene speech" can essentially move the bar wherever a government pleases as to what is and isn't "obscene speech"

if terminology that vague was codified into law, then there's a very real argument that criticizing the ruling Party can be obscene speech and punishable for that.

If you want speech that isn't protected by the first amendment, you have to be more specific. "speech that calls for murder or violence" would be a better description, but can even go more specific or narrow from there.

It is codified into law, by the Miller test currently.
>Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
>Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law,
>Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

I don't think you understand what free speech is

no, it's another label they are using these days...

Disgusting

Justice Stewart's caricature is obscene, disgusting and patently offensive while lacking serious literary, artistic, political oxford comma or scientific value

>We the people*

*White males

>mfw the UN tried banning porn comics in japan
When will these fucks do something useful like stop genocides or something?

I don't see anti-hate-speech activists getting any traction in the U.S. court system.

Harassment is a form of abuse. People should understand that saying different, even retarded political views is nit harassment.

Most courts are condemning unis for not promoting freedom of speech.

This, judges in the US, conservative and liberal alike, are very pro-free speech. They keep cracking down on universities for their speech codes.

The issue is that a judgment for violating students' free speech rights is much, much lower than the potential judgment for a "sexually or racially hostile environment", which is very poorly defined, so university administrators, combined with political support from the small coterie of leftist professors who think "hate speech isn't free speech", construe the latter very broadly and prohibit anything potentially offensive to avoid civil liability.

The U.N is an organization run by more than a hundred members many of which only aren't in an open state of war with each other because of MAD or America's political hegemony. There is always at least one person who disagrees with a decision and the U.N's design means they can always prevent their rivals from acting, even if just for spite.