Elonis believes that his right of free speech under the protection of the First Amendment was violated. As his lawyer argues, “[Elonis has] no ‘subjective’ intent to threaten” so that his
First Amendment: My view and theirs Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ----First Amendment The First Amendment has led Americans to believe in a hallowed sense of freedom that does not exist; freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in this country has never been absolute. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater, solicit bribes, make terrorist threats, slander another, intentionally inflict emotional distress or be obscene in public (Dickerson). What Americans do have a right to is their opinion and the means by which to express it, no matter if the opinion is favorable or not.
This essay will explain and analyze two essays by individuals who express entirely different opinions of civil disobedience. In his essay, “Civil Disobedience: Destroyer of Democracy”, Lewis H. Van Dusen strongly discourages the use of civil disobedience as a means for change. He feels that this act of disobedience directly contradicts our democratic system. The other individual being compared in this essay is Henry David Thoreau; who in his essay, “Civil Disobedience”, supports the act of peacefully challenging or protesting unjust laws. He impugns us to do what is morally right, and to not be afraid to take a stand against injustice.
Both of these articles are geared towards audiences who have an interest in the issue of pornography. Susan Jacoby believes in the absolute interpretation of First Amendment that says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (U.S. Constitution) She is of the view that feminist and other feminist groups try to manipulate this amendment by interpreting in various ways. She further asserts that these feminist groups, who negate absoluteness of First Amendment, use their interpretation to serve their purposes. She does not accept their claim that pornography and its various manifestations are of a different nature than a simple question of
Lithwick:Teens, Nude Photos and the Law In this article, published in Newsweek, the author explains the harsh possible outcomes from teenagers sending at the own free will nude photos of themselves to their mates or lovers. Something that the author defines as “sexting” epidemic and analyses how the law is treating offenders and victims. The author makes an obvious claim that the criminal-justice system is too harsh to solve any issues that deal with teens and technology because this issue is becoming more common and although he doesn’t examine different or alternative ways to solve the problem, personally I agree with him that the law should not interfere with such juvenile cases because being exposed to others instead of the person it was intended for is punishment enough. In the article, the author brings personal stories which highlight three
On 31 December 2007, Stephen Conroy announced the Federal Government's intention to introduce an ISP-based filter to censor "inappropriate material" from the Internet (mainly child abuse and terrorism). In this announcement he also stated that adults could opt out of the filter to receive an uncensored internet. The filter itself is flawed, so is met with strong opposition. Banning illegal content like child abuse and terrorism is inarguably a good thing. I welcome it.
In the United States of America, the people are protected by a group of laws called the Constitution. The very first of these laws is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (US Constitution) This decree states that for no reason may the government restrict the right of free speech to the people. Free speech is sort of like your opinion on matters.
While both articles argue similar points, Tin’s article differs to O’Brien’s in that his outraged and alarmed tone seeks to criminalize teenagers rather than support them. Similarly, the article “Sinister Sexting,” published in S Press Magazine on September, 2011, furthermore asserts on how young people fail to see the lifelong consequences sexting has. On the contrary to Tin’s article, the author in this editorial uses an alarming tone outlining to teenagers the serious consequences of those who sext. The focal point of O’Brien’s article is the image in the centre of the page. The use of a blurred, dark silhouette evokes feelings of seclusion and vulnerability because the person is alone in a darkened room and seems completely transfixed by their mobile phone.
Should Porn be Outlawed: Pornography’s Effects on Relationships, Society, and the Economy Pornography at its very core is a word that comes with much stigmatism. The word “pornography” come from Greek root words porne “prostitute, female slave” and graphos “to write, describe” (“Online Etymology Dictionary”). Right off the bat the word implies that the woman is a slave to the bidding, of the person producing the pornographic material. Defining pornography is a difficult task. Several factors can influence the definition of the word, the definition changes depending on the social and historical situation it is used in, something that was considered porn 100 years ago (Ex.
But, is pornography really that harmful? There are many reasons why the government is having trouble putting restrictions on pornography. As Cynthia Stark states in Social Theory and Practice," just because some find certain materials offensive is not a sufficient reason for restricting those materials." There has to be proper grounds for making such laws to prevent pornography distribution because either way you look at it, it goes against the free speech laws of the first amendment. Nadine Strossen of the ACLU had a good point when she said "the First Amendment contains no exception for sexual speech.