Judicial activism
Regarding the Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association case, I choose judicial activism philosophical approach to argue against the decision of the Supreme Court on the issue of obscenity and free speech. The central reason why I chose this philosophical approach is that there is the need to make the constitution progressive and compatible to the modern society by reducing the level of restraint that we appl. Times are changing to fast in the modern society and so should be the law. I have not chosen this philosophical approach because it merely gives me the outcome I want but instead because it is a tool that can be instrumental in enhancing decisions making in the judicial systems and in legislature.
In the case of Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, which focuses on finding a line between free speech and obscenity, the issue is more sensitive as it is touching on children welfare. The debate needs some level of dynamism that will not only focus on the definition provided by the constitution but also on the future of children in the modern society. As a result, the definition of free speech and obscenity must change. Undeniably, human beings have the right to free speech, but when it comes to children, this right must be controlled for their sake. Exposing children to computer games and material that depict violence all because it is their right is entirely wrong. There is the need to stop generalizing the law but instead make it diverse such that it helps in solving current pressing issues. Exposing children to the violent and obscene material will have an adverse effect on their cognitive functioning.