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. There are some advocates who champion for restrictions on unfavorable speech, like violent or racist remarks. And though the intentions behind such beliefs are made in good faith, it is unrealistic to believe the mission of filtering out racist speech could be completed without catching in the same net all kinds of other speech that is considered "OK" (Lawrence III 514). I firmly believe that a government that tells its citizens what is appropriate to say will soon be dictating what they may think also, and by that, it is unlawful for the government to regulate racist or violent speech. By doing so the government would intrude on students' creativity and learning process, would set illusive restraints on racist behavior, and undermine the Constitution at whole.
All these things and much more happen here in the United States. Where is the freedom in that? Most people do not see the horrible way some people may lose their freedom, or maybe they choose to not see. I am in no means saying that some of these people may not deserve to lose their freedom,
Therefore an amendment was needed so they could participate in this right. Citizens assumed they would be protected by their own states’ constitution, so it was not until the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, therefore, Americans were not impacted by the Bill of Rights. The federal government grew in purpose, size and significance as a result. Because of this, debates began with the Bill of Rights which still leaves some questions to this very
Some people would argue that some ideas or images are simply too dangerous or radical to be displayed to the public. How can this be a sound argument, when the same people enjoy and actively reference their freedom of speech? Think about if influential books, articles, or movies were never published simply because they were too “indecent” or, dare I say it, too “thought-provoking”. Since when did people start sacrificing knowledge and intelligence for safety? It’s apparent that at least some people tend to disagree with censorship, recently being the Supreme Court.
Everyone will live in fear because saying terrorism is all right. In conclusion, although the freedom of speech is the very first basic human right for the American citizens, Elonis’ argument should not be protected because his freedom intervenes other people’s personal safety and freedom. We are never absolutely free because we are always bounded by certain laws, and only in that way we can enjoy our own freedom
The court said the Second Amendment protects your right, but this regulation doesn’t violate your right. So I don’t think it makes a big difference. And conversely, to say it’s not an individual right doesn’t mean that gun owners are without all rights, and the ACLU has often collaborated with gun owners rights organizations to defend their rights to privacy, to defend their rights to due process; in other words, they don’t forfeit all of their Constitutional rights just because they are gun owners, even if the Second Amendment doesn’t protect. So I think it’s more a philosophical debate than it has any practical
Today if that code still existed, maybe the world would be a better place. Maybe there would not be as much violence as there is now. Should people be given second chances, or was there second chance used when they messed up the first time? One knows the law, and he/she knows that it should not be broken, but it happens anyway. In one’s opinion, Hammurabi’s code is very just for that time period because, like any other place, without a law there would be no sense of government or authority and everyone would do as they
The existing facial profiling systems are far from being [Doctoral rule (but good advice for any academic writer)--If not a noun (as in "human being"), the word "Being" is hard to imagine; it means "existing." Try to rewrite this without using "being"--with action words like "attending," "working," "living," "experiencing," simply "as"--or even removing "being" completely] perfect and cause numerous errors. Law enforcement agencies develop effective surveillance procedures, but these procedures imply that any type of personal communication can be subject to legal monitoring. As a result, there is a “possibility of sharing of sensitive private information between several agencies with no safeguards for their future use” (Schwabe, 2003) [Needs page number] . Although surveillance procedures can prevent possible terrorist threats, they can also break citizens’
The ownership of words is a vague and unknown concept. It’s hard to tell when an individual is less entitled to a phrase than someone else because language cannot be captured and prized away from the rest of the world, as a house or a pet can be. Freedom of speech, being the first amendment for the United States of America, is a privilege for good reason; so that the expression of thought can be produced with ease and without any resulting consequence. For this reason, a phrase is allowed to be repeated for its own purposes, not harmfully affect others, and despite it having been coined by someone else in the past, one should not be penalized for using it. A debate is relayed between two gentlemen solely for the ownership of simply words in what is known as “Coca-Cola Letters.” Ira C. Herbert voices his ownership of the slogan “it’s the real thing” and encourages Richard Seaver to respect this claim.
However, freedom also has its limitations it may not interfere with other privileges or rights. In order to maintain Jefferson’s philosophy on liberty, a compromise must be made between freedom of expression and censorship. Although people are promised by the Constitution a right to freedom of expression, there are certain boundaries which are never to be crossed. It is the responsibility of the government to preserve the law while supporting the people; for the U.S. democracy is run by consent of the people. A prime example of this controversial issue is the system of television ratings.