Primarily, it is clearly geared towards its receiving audience, namely well-to-do traditional American families. As a result, it definitely holds a biased position that requires it to appeal to its readers and pander to popular opinions beyond simply informing the general public of newsworthy events regarding the war. The second document also exhibits bias, although of a completely different sort. This underground newspaper promotes radically different, liberal, anti-war ideas and is obviously not geared towards ameliorating its professional image or really pandering to its audience. Its unofficial status makes it less put together while perhaps ensuring greater freedom of information.
Censorship in the society of Fahrenheit 451, mainly in the form of books by banning them, has three major effects on the populations: defined thought, shallow happiness and homogenous society. What the removal of books from mankind does is increases the intellectual contentment of a person, no matter what they’re faced with. Reading books causes the mind to think more critically and most importantly, think for it. If the brain is not thinking for itself, then the job of the group or individual trying to manipulate and control you is already half done. Once it becomes easier to manipulate the person freely, the government in the case of Fahrenheit 451 is capable to engineering a whole society as they please.
I would have liked to have more information from the Amish perspective than the outside world’s view, but there was significant conclusions drawn from what was available. It seems the program has a good start in the community and will be beneficial for other Amish communities to get started. I was intrigued by the multicultural aspects of the article and where it has went in the media. There has been more information available for the public in regards to the Amish way of life. They have always valued their privacy, which made it interesting to see that they have allowed some of their cultural aspects to be shed to the public.
I personally believe that both William Safire and Alan Dershowitz have a good argument. Dershowitz is pointing out the positive aspects of having National ID cards while Safire points out the negative. I agree with both of them. I think that the ID would give us more security and would make me feel safer about what goes on around me everyday. I do also believe that it would be a gateway for law enforcement to be able to exploit people more often and pick on them because of something on their record.
For this same reason the public opinion is divided with some people recognizing more negatives outweighing the positives while some suggest the opposite. Many people see the negative impact as being more significant because British rule in India resulted in impoverished, poor people and food shortages in India. Many people see the positive impact as being more significant because Britain brought infrastructure and technology to the Indian people. Because these viewpoints can both be supported, there is a great complexity to this issue. The position that should be taken on this issue is that British rule in India was a positive impact on the Indian people to a small extent.
Censorship is the idea of not revealing ideas and text in order to benefit society. But in many ways, censoring items causes the world to create biased thoughts based on the limited information released. In some cases the world is blinded because they are told nothing to begin with. Historical events such as the holocaust can prove this true. To this day society continues to be censored from ideas by the government and companies that impact our ways of life and learning.
He continues by claiming that denying housing and employment for smokers is a form of public hostility. This is a false analogy, and where Scott uses the term “discrimination” in an inappropriate manner. Racial and ethnic discrimination is different because people do not choose to be a certain race like choosing to be a smoker. Furthermore, people do not negatively affect others in their vicinity with secondhand ethnicity. By stating that nonsmokers “force their beliefs on the rest of society,” Scott suggests that smokers are victims of violences, and are threatened with restriction of the First Amendment.
Ray Bradbury talks about Fahrenheit not so much being about censorship but about being a society that didn’t read. People in the story are not intrested in reading because they think books are the cause of depression and how books carry on myths and legends. Also how technology has replaced books and that it has also affected relationships. To begin with people are siimple and unquestiong. They depend upon technology so much they think is a waste of time to open up a book.
Technology seems to be subtly destroying the meaningfulness of human interactions, disconnecting us from each other and the world around us, and leading to a menacing sense of isolation in society. We need to go back to simpler times and back to simple communication. People tend to exaggerate the personas they portray because they have much more time to revise and calculate the content rather than a spontaneous face-to-face interaction. Some psychologists and sociologists who have studied usage habits on Twitter, Facebook and popular dating sites say there's little correlation between how people act on the internet and how they act in person. Not to mention, Face to face communication had been the "norm" for thousands of years.
These points suggesting that although the English law is underpinned by religious suggesting it has not lost its significance in society the fact that people still break the law means the significance is lowered. Religion is still significant in today’s society as the majority of