If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

Main content
Current time:0:00Total duration:3:39

Identify the principle | Worked example

Video transcript

so columnist is saying or writing although there is and should be complete freedom of thought and expression that does not mean that there is nothing wrong with exploiting depraved popular tastes for the sake of financial gain which one of the following judgments conforms most closely to the principles cited by the columnist alright let's read these the government should grant artists the right to create whatever works of art they want to create so long as no one considers those works to be depraved so choice a is saying hey artist should be able to create whatever they want as long as they don't offend people or are considered depraved according to certain people that's not what the columnist is saying he says there is he's saying there is and should be complete freedom of thought and expression so that means that anyone should be able to express themselves however they see fit what he would be author's saying what he or she is saying is that even if you have a right to make something that might be offensive to some people or that might be appealing to the baser instincts of some people you have the right to do it it still doesn't mean that it's that it's not that there's nothing wrong with it so I would rule out choice a you have the freedom to do whatever you want as you can't the government can't restrict things that it deems to be depraved people who produce depraved movies have the freedom to do so are this reads well so far but that means that they also have the freedom to refrain from doing so this isn't exactly what it's saying it obviously have the freedom to do something or not do it otherwise you wouldn't be talking about it in terms of freedom but it's saying hey they have the freedom to do so but it still doesn't mean that you can't pass judgment on them you can't stop them from doing it but you could still say hey I don't think what you're doing is great so I don't like this choice either there should be no laws restricting what books are published but publishing books that pander to people with depraved case is not thereby morally acceptable this one's looking interesting because it parallels what the comma said there should be no laws restricting books are published on the in the publishing realm no one should stop you from publishing whatever you want but if you publish books that pander to people to depraved taste this is very similar to exploiting depraved popular tastes if you make a book that's you know and some people would consider trashy in some way that still doesn't mean that it's morally acceptable you can do what you want you we shouldn't restrict it but that doesn't mean that I have to say it's morally acceptable so this one is looking good let's look at choices D and E the public has the freedom to purchase whatever recordings are produced but that does not mean that the government may not limit the production of recording so we can definitely rule this one out because the columnist definitely says there is and should be complete freedom of thought and expression and this right over here is implying that the government has a right to limit the production of recordings so I would rule that one out and then finally choice E one who advocates complete freedom of speech should not criticize others for saying thing for saying things that he or she believes to be to exhibit depraved case no this is not what they're saying they're saying with you you can advocate for freedom of speech but that's that you but that means that you you can still criticize someone's work you can still say hey you're exhibiting depraved tastes or you're appealing to people's baser instincts so that's not what the original colonists said so we can feel good about picking picking see