Freedom of expression has always been a heated and heavily debated topic throughout our society, more so in recent times due to the increasing amount of freedoms that we gain. However, it is only natural that free speech be something of extreme amounts of conflict since this right is expressed in the very first amendment of the Constitution. But, how loosely should such an important document within our history be interpreted? This has been a question for years, and it is obvious that this particular amendment presents itself through our day-to-day activities. The real issue with freedom of speech is that, even though it is presented to us, there are obviously people who would abuse it to invoke emotional distress, or even to invoke acts of violence. I believe that only in particular situations in which there is an obvious threat of clear and present danger should freedom of speech be repressed, and neither Hustler nor its creator, Larry Flynt, does anything to imply danger.
One such philosopher who accurately and justifiably takes the position against society and the government, such as the United States government muzzling Larry Flynt and banning parts of Hustler, is John Stuart Mill in On Liberty. Near the beginning of the work, Mill states, “…by obtaining a recognition of certain immunities, called political liberties or rights, which it was to be regarded as a breach of duty in the ruler to infringe, and which if he did infringe, specific resistance, or general rebellion, was held to be justifiable.” (Mill 115) This idea that Mill surfaces within the text, published in 1859, sounds extremely similar and points in the same direction as the facts stated within the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights, created in 1789. The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or