1 / 11

ART AS A FORM OF SPEECH

ART AS A FORM OF SPEECH. Art is a form of speech that uses images instead of words. For this reason, art can be called “symbolic speech.” Just like speech that uses words, symbolic speech has the power to sway

emera
Télécharger la présentation

ART AS A FORM OF SPEECH

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ART AS A FORM OF SPEECH • Art is a form of speech that uses images instead of words. For this reason, art can be called • “symbolic speech.” Just like speech that uses words, symbolic speech has the power to sway • public opinion and is often used to do so. For example, art has been used to both encourage • people to help with a war effort and to protest war. • During World Wars I and II, War Posters designed to instill patriotism, confidence, and a • positive outlook were used extensively to persuade all Americans to help with the war effort. • One of the most famous of these posters, “Rosie the Riveter,” shows a strong woman with her • sleeve rolled up flexing her bicep as a symbol of strength. The words “We can do it!” are • coming out of her mouth. Rosie has become an icon for strong women doing their part. • Art has also been used to protest war. During the Vietnam War, many artists created posters • against the war. They used a whole range of words and images to make their position clear, • creating art of amazing variety and richness. Like “Rosie the Riveter,” many of these posters

  2. The First Amendment is dynamic: our understanding and interpretations of it have evolved as American society has changed. Would the Founding Fathers have thought the internet should be protected by the First Amendment if it had existed in 1791? Would they have restricted it in any way?

  3. Freedom of speech extends to statements with which we may disagree, including those that are hateful, defiant, and contemptuous. This means the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea just because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. Do people have a right to publish racist ads in the newspaper? What about homophobic ads? Does the Ku Klux Klan have a right to have public demonstrations?

  4. In general, individuals cannot be punished by the government if the reason for the punishment is the message or idea expressed. Can someone be punished for criticizing the government? For expressing the view that terrorism is an effective way to address political issues? For making a political cartoon that expresses this controversial point of view?

  5. Freedom of speech also covers symbolic speech, that is, actions or objects that represent someone’s thoughts, ideas, or words as a form of expression. Symbolic speech is protected in the same way as words that are written or spoken. Do people have a right to publicly burn pictures of politicians or other people they don’t like?

  6. Limits on free speech • Clear and present danger that will bring about evils the government has a right to prevent.” These are the words of the Supreme Court in 1919. When can free speech present a clear and present danger? To the government? To individuals? • Fighting Words, or Words that are Likely to Cause a Breach of the Peace: The First Amendment does not protect words and expressions which are considered provocative by general consent. This includes hateful speech. In 1942, the Supreme Court stated that there was a category of face-to-face epithets, or "fighting words" that was wholly outside of the protection of the First Amendment. The Court defined these as words "which by their very utterance inflict injury" and which "are no essential part of any exposition of ideas.“ Does your school have any rules that are like this limitation on Free Speech? .

  7. Libel and Slander: The First Amendment does not protect speech that constitutes dishonesty intended to defame or damage the reputation of a person or an organization. Libel is written and slander is spoken; both are false statements injurious to a person’s reputation. • Have you heard of someone being sued for libel? Do you think the person the libel was aimed at had a right to sue someone they think damaged their reputation? Obscenity: The First Amendment does not protect speech that is obscene. In 1973, the Supreme Court decided three questions must receive affirmative responses for material to be considered obscene: • 1. Would the average person, applying contemporary community standards, viewing the work as a whole, find the work appeals to prurient interests? • 2. Does the work depict or describe sexual conduct in a patently offensive way? • 3. Does the work taken as a whole lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value? • How should the government decide what it considers to be obscene? Do you, your parents, and your friends all agree about what should fall into this category?

  8. Conflict with Other Legitimate Social or Governmental Interests: The First Amendment does not protect speech that conflicts with other compelling interests. For example, there may be reasons to restrict First Amendment rights because of conflicts with national security. What are some other examples of “compelling interests?” Who should decide when a compelling interest merits limiting free speech?

More Related