Freedom of speech and of the press
This is my interpretation of the constitutional amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech and of the press. I beleive it is one of the intrisic rights of human beings, and covers all forms of communication, art, and distribution of information, including those which may have not been invented yet.
I beleive it to be a very nearly absolute right, however there are three exceptions to it, which I beleive should not be protected, two being types of information, and one being a type of communication.
Almost all types of information should be permitted to be distributed. This includes those we may find disgusting, such as certain types of pornography. However, there are two types of information which I believe should be censored. The first type is SLANDER, by which I mean information which the distributor knows to be false, but which is presented in such a way as to convince the audience that it is true. This would include false accusions against individuals, lies about a company's product, and using computers to put the heads of well known persons onto other people's nude bodies. It does not include fiction, which is false, but which is not intended to be regarded as true, and therefore would be protected by the constitution.
The second type of information which I beleive is not protected by the constitution (and this would apply mainly to film, video, and photography) is the documenting or depiction of actual criminal acts, which were commited for the specific purpose of creating a depiction of them. The most notorious examples of this would be snuff films and child pornography. Murder and child molestation are crimes. Ordinary sex between adults is not a crime, therefore ordinary pornography should not be censored. If you don't like it, don't look at it. I don't like a lot of it either, however those who do like it have a right to see it, or to make it. (Please note, this does not justify the censoring of any type of information simply because it MIGHT be used in a crime. That standard could be potentially used to censor almost anything.)
The third exception to freedom of speech/ of the press regards a specific form of communication. This is what I think: An individual has the right to discuss or portray anything he likes (except the two items mentioned above)in a public venue (TV, movies, newpapers, public debates, public message boards on the internet, paintings, etc). This right is unlimited, because by accessing the public source of information, an individual has given their consent to be subjected to whatever sorts of information they might find there.
An individual also has the right to discuss or portray anything he likes in a private venue (phone calls, instant messaging such as ICQ, talking to an individual face to face, letters, etc) to all those individuals who meet the following criteria:
1. They are able to give their consent to hear or see it. In other words, do not send obscene material to children.
2. They have not specifically withdrawn their consent to hear or see it. In other words, if someome tells you to shut up, stop calling them, stop sending them ads etc., then leave that person alone.
Other than these three limitations I mention, I feel there should be no censorship by the government or by anyone else regarding any type of communication or art. If you disagree with me, feel there is something I missed, or have any questions, feel free to e-mail me.