Subject:  First Amendment

Editor,

You say editorially (July 11) that the First Amendment protects the right of all individuals to freely express themselves.  Does this mean that laws against indecent exposure are unconstitutional? 

And you argue that if we don't like art that fosters hatred and debases humankind, and womankind particularly; we don't have to buy it or even look at it.  The decision is ours and not that of government.  We can keep our children from buying and looking at it, but you don't say how.

The government must, you contend, stay its evil hand of censorship and distance itself from the problem.  But the problem would not exist but for our placing the First Amendment stamp of approval on this supposed “right” of commercial merchandisers of filth and depravity to pollute and subvert the ambiance and culture in which we live - all under the pretext of free expression. 

There is no human right in the Constitution or anywhere else to express less respect and esteem for others than one claims and expects for oneself.

No one is for censorship or suppression of art, however defined.  But thrusting this into the public arena under whatever guise is, like all conduct among humans, subject to regulation as to time, place and manner - “like shooting a gun,” according eminent civil libertarian Alexander Meiklejohn.

As American citizens we are all without exception entitled to a culture which recognizes the Golden Rule, and which upholds the dignity and worth of every individual and one's equal right to “the blessings of liberty.”  And there is such a thing as the “just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society,” to quote from Article 29 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
 

Louis Worth Jones
 
 

1990