Most Insidious Aspect of 1984F Band Newspeak is the most insidious aspect of the dystopia society of 1984 because it prevents the advancement of one's ideas by constricting them to a certain form, and therefore destroying the chance of opposition. By controlling the range of thought through Newspeak's ever-diminishing vocabulary, people are unable to express themselves completely. Without the sufficient words to describe unorthodox thoughts, thoughts become impossible to be unorthodox. That is the ultimate goal of Newspeak. Newspeak enables doublethink and changing the past.
The gradually declining dialect limits the ideas that individuals have the potential of formulating and expressing, promoting a narrowing of thoughts and awareness to their system of control. It is therefore ideal for a totalitarian system. By the ‘destruction of words’, ‘thought-crime’ is made almost entirely impossible by curtailing frivolous and rioting words. Such narrowed public thought is the inner- party’s aim, as a populace that lacks the ability to think vividly, eliminates the threat of an uprising against the government. This system of communication is therefore used as a mind-control tool.
The first and obvious reason is that the book takes place in a pro-communist setting. The book may have been trying to prove a point, but it was still enough to offend many. The book is also sexually explicit, so it is easy to see why parents may want to “protect” their children from the idea of sex and that it should not be thought of in the way George Orwell writes about it. The most interesting reason for the ban of 1984 was the fact that it reminded people of what is like in the United States today. It has made people uncomfortable to think that what is being described in this chilling novel reminds them of what they see outside their own windows, with the fact that humans are constantly on watch and there is practically no way to keep anything hidden.
Many believe that a government without limits will turn into a government that acts in ways that will disregard the rights of all in all circumstances (Zalman, M. (2008). Those who support the crime control model, however, indicate that these protections hinder law enforcement investigation and allow defendants more privacy than victims are allowed “Crime control emphasizes an efficient criminal process through early determination of guilt by law enforcement agents” and the Fourth Amendment prevents this (Cornell,
In the essays of Harvey A. Silverglate and Charles R. Lawrence III they argue about feedom of speech. Harvey Silverglate explains in his essay how many universities are taking away the freedom of speech. He feels that peole's rights are taken away by disabiling them to speak freely.On the other hand Charles Lawrence explains how freedom of speech causes a threat to minorities. He states how minorities become victums of freedom of speech. While that might be the case in many instances, freedom of speech is a more positive advantage than a negative threat and abridging it is against the First Amendment.
They believe this was a right that they were given by our Four Fathers, which is clearly not true. Yes, they have the freedom of speech but when should the freedom be taken away? What about the rights of the innocent victims and their families? Hate crimes, because of their nature will always lead to violence and this is not a freedom that people should have. In my opinion, the penalties for hate crimes should continue to be more severe than that of a regular crime because so many innocent people are injured and even killed simply because they are different.
At times I feel as if I am incarcerated, even though I am a free citizen. I think the solution to ridding gun violence is to get rid of all the guns. Since that'll never happen, we need to make guns less accessible by creating federal legislation, applying it uniformly throughout every state. Easy gun accessibility is the reason why there are so many homicides because it is easier to pull a trigger than by attacking with a knife or other foreign object. I feel that handguns and assault weapons should be outlawed altogether because too many people misuse them.
Should the Parole System be abolished? Timothy P Ostin 0458935 TESC November 2010 ENC 102-OL014 Research Paper In its current state, the U.S. parole system is flawed and truly causes more harm than good. Abolishing parole is absolutely necessary for the safety and well being of the community of law abiding citizens that inmates are released to live amongst, as well as the best opportunity for offenders to rehabilitate so that reintegration is ultimately more successful. Most people believe that the parole system is not only corrupt, but inherently unjust…making it seemingly contradictory to the foundation upon which the system was initially built, the justice system. While the decision to abolish parole is a controversial one,
People were opposed to one person ruling their lives, enforcing and promoting laws beneficial to him and a selected few. Top in the new government’s constitution was the declaration of citizen’s rights. The constitution was a vital Revolution document which stated that the collective and individual rights of each social estate were universal. Laws were only meant to forbid actions that could hurt the society meaning that laws were to be created only for the people’s good and not for selfish reasons (Neely 2008, p. 79). However, the Terror enforced and promoted laws against equality and liberty ideals.
There are arguments that say it is detrimental to the learning of the English language, while others argue that it helps people with literacy. In the article “2b, or not 2b”, David Crystal argues that texting does help. I disagree with Crystal’s idea; I believe that it negatively affects people’s literacy. In David Crystals “2b or not 2b” he starts off by giving several points of views that argue against the idea of texting. In all of these points of views, the same idea persists, that texting is destroying the English language.