The Patriot Act authorizes unethical and unconstitutional surveillance of American citizens with a negligible improvement in national security. Free speech, free thinking, and a free American lifestyle cannot survive in the climate of distrust and constant fear created by the Patriot Act. The words that Bush once said about protecting civil liberties have been forgotten. Undoubtedly, The Patriot Act takes away individual privacy rights and liberties from American citizens in exchange for the “greater good” of the country. The first reason of how the Patriot Act negatively affects our society is by taking away freedom of speech and the right to express and communicate ideas.
The first Amendment is a change to a previous bill, created to guarantee the right for every American when it comes to ideas, beliefs, and political debate. The first Amendment protects Americans from prosecution and censorship when an individual expresses their ideas and beliefs, however controversy arise when an individual’s expression harms the right of others. As a result, this is hate speech. Hate speech are words that are used to wound, defame and demean an individual. The words are used with intent to make the victim seem less than a human and unworthy of respect.
Patrice Foster Professor Hayaud-Din Government 2301-2406 Summer I 2012 Extra Credit Abolishing The Exclusionary Rule Word Count: Patrice Foster The Exclusionary Rule The Exclusionary Rule is a senseless rule. We should get rid of it and the police and prosecutors should be able to use the evidence even if it’s obtained in violation of the rule, because we could potentially let criminals go to satisfy this rule. This rule is so full of controversy, that it is hard to support. How can we as citizens embrace this rule? A rule that does so little to protect the law as it was made.
We should be able to say whatever it is that we want. Even back then they shouldn't be able to put somebody into jail for saying a negative comment about the government or even a leader. They should have had the right to say what they wanted to and to express the way that they felt about it. The Patriot Act was passed for much the same reason as the Alien and Sedition Acts. It was made law in our response to the fear of terrorism caused by the events of 9/11.
One side to this ongoing argument is that all guns in the United States need to be banned. Many Americans feel this way, believing that, “violence is out of control. Guns are a major cause. They should all be banned- the sooner the better.” To be exact nearly three out of four Americans, 73%, believe that guns need to be under a lot more control. The second amendment says “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” (Bill of Rights).
Martin Luther King Jr. states “Oppressed People cannot remain oppressed forever.” (Cahn, 2009 p. 387) As we have seen throughout history, this is a true statement. Oppression is not something that sits well with any type of person that is under the oppression. To resist the oppression, one must carefully chose those laws that they fill are unjust and oppresses them, and once they are chosen then one can make a stand against the oppression. Oppression is unjust law that limits the power of the people that are oppressed into feeling powerless. The United States fought of the oppression over the colonies in the late 1700’s by first peacefully protesting the unjust taxes waged against them.
Kant’s Ethical Theory Strengths Weaknesses Not consequentialist – Kant easily shows the fatal flaw of Utilitarianism – a bad act can have good consequences. Kant’s theory doesn’t make this mistake. Consequences – There are some occasions when consequences are so severe that many think it is better to break a rule than allow awful things to happen. Universal – Kant’s theory provides moral laws that hold universally, regardless of culture or individual situations. Inflexible – You should be able to break an unhelpful rule if the individual circumstances warrant it.
C.J. Dickson in R. v. Keegstra Both the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and s. 2(b) the of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protect the freedom of expression. (1) Yet in both countries governments motivated by concern for the public welfare have attempted to suppress "hate speech," a category of expression commonly defined as consisting of offensive, abusive, and insulting language that targets individuals and groups on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, or gender. Hate speech is undeniably ugly, so much so that even persons normally leery of censorship might be tempted to agree that nothing of value is lost by its suppress ion. But constitutional guarantees cannot be evaded so easily.
The owner is treating the consumer as a means only and not as end in themselves. On Kantian grounds such advertising violates consumer rights to rational self-determination, their autonomy. Deceptive advertising is also an example of a nonuniversalizable act. They are blatantly lying about the benefits of their product. The principle of universalizability asks if you can will your maxim as a law for everyone.
Is Torture Ever Justified? Terrorism and Civil Liberties The Economist In this piece “Is Torture Ever Justified?” the issue of torture being used on enemies during interrogation is the focus and it seems to me the author argues that it is not justifiable but only in certain circumstances. I would argue with him on his claim, I do not feel that torture is ever justifiable regardless of how dire the situation. According to this article torture is banned from almost everything. There are treaties set in place such as the Geneva Conventions, the UN Convention against Torture that are against it “consider it along with genocide, torture is the only crime that every state must punish it no matter what”.