reviews the history of America where intolerance, repression and censorship were upheld against individuals who were observed to engage in degrading speech against the flag. Judgment against such speech in different countries was harsh to the extent that individuals such as Socrates and Salman Rushdie were sentenced to death due to their speeches as presented in both their talk and their writings (Frohnmayer 35).
The artists of that generation did not have the kind of freedom that is enjoyed in the current society, and they were free to present their ideas in any way they opted. The author identifies different individuals such as Antony Comstock and their long careers in advocating for censorship of some of the literature that was regarded as obscene, in the view of protecting the youth from indecent photography that he believes was mistakenly recognized as at. According to Frohnmayer, Comstock “railed against so-called artists, shielding themselves in the cloak of free expression while producing material that “fans the flames of secret desires”” (Frohnmayer 36).Comstock brought about a revolution that so the development and passing of laws that would prohibit the selling of “obscene” literature. Such prohibition has been extended throughout different fields of art including music with a common stance of protecting the public from what is ‘harmful’. Censoring has been enforced with the view of promoting order and not freedom.
In the words of Frohnmayer, “Freedom is imprecise, inefficient, ambiguous, and often annoying” (Frohnmayer 37). As such, the censor was developed not to review what was within obscene material but to bar it without logical considerations as much as it is deemed harmful to the public. The author believes that a large part of the public does not agree with the societal blasphemers who hold disregard for the flag in their speech. However, the First Amendment is seen to protect the minority who are in support of the freedom