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.
So, oppressed people can not win the respect of oppressor. He believes in this way the oppressed become as evil as the oppressor because acquiescence is the easier way to encounter oppression, also it is not the moral way. In Dr. King’s opinion, the second way is resorting to physical violence and corroding hatred. He believes violence not only brings impermanent results, but also is impractical and immoral. According to King, it is impractical because it slows the process of ending the oppression for all, and it is immoral because it seeks humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding.
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.
citizens are entitled to there are always exemptions. This would be a case to case basis and would all depend on the circumstances of each case to discreatly say what information may have been obtained to harm someone. As far as blaming the author, we all have the right to freedom of speech but when it comes to the “how-to” manuals, there should be some type of limitations on what can be published and what can’t. We will never be able to control the many methods of communications that have been and will be sent in place for those who choose to use the internet. This information can be passed on through social websites, blogs, etc.
Student Professor English 305 6 November 2009 I Say No To Hate Crime Laws Hate crimes are an irrational, ignorant and cowardly expression of desperation. A person who commits a hate crime is desperate to feel better, superior and in control. That being said, there should not be special laws and mandatory sentences for people who commit these heinous acts of violence because they do not accomplish the goals of eradicating or deterring bigotry. If we, as a society, put special laws and punishments into our legal system, we are unequivocally saying that the motive of these acts is more important than the intent or outcome of these crimes. I do not believe this is true nor do I feel that this is the position of the majority of people in
Down with the Patriot Act The Patriot Act is a very controversial law. It allows the government much more room to do as they please. Some of these practices that government officials can do are monitoring phone calls, emails, and going through personal records. They say this will help prevent terrorism, but is losing one’s privacy really worth it? Could there be a better way to prevent terrorism?
One of the many horrors that this act allows is the legality of the law enforcement to acquire and view e-mails sent via the World Wide Web as well as phone numbers that you have dialed without first informing you or without obtaining a court order. This essentially violates the fourth amendment right to privacy of the person and possessions against unreasonable searches. The act was passed as a measure to combat terror but the powers that it gives to the government are too vast. The definition of an act of “domestic terrorism” according to the USA PATRIOT act is any activities that “involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State (Uniting and Strengthening, 2001)”. With a definition so broadly defined any citizen in this country suspected of murder could be deemed a terrorist and according to the PATRIOT act, terrorists do not have to receive a fair
Dwyer uses this expression to show that he does not concur with the intentions of the law enforcers who claim that their actions are all for the people’s safety. He uses this expression as a light term that is not as offensive as other terms would have been, yet it achieves its purpose. Dwyer might have chosen this expression to show that he was angry with the current situation, but he did not want to be offensive by using other terms. Biased language is depicted by Dwyer’s use of the expression “illegal aliens”. Labelling a person as an illegal alien portrays that the individual, as opposed to his or her actions, is unlawful.
The idea of legal paternalism in ethical reasoning is somewhat of a kind gesture from the Government to try to help individuals from themselves in the assumption that those individuals do not know what is best for them. But, forcing individuals to paternalistic laws in order to protect them is limiting their natural born rights and is unconstitutional. The Government must respect people's choices because respecting individuals choices manifest a respect for them as liberated individuals protected by the constitution of the United States. Government should not interfere with people's personal lives; because
If a member of a minority group were to be offended by another individual then the minority group member must take stand for himself or herself instead of allowing that certain individual to walk away with these hate words. The best way to combat hate speech is to speak out against it. Not only will they set things clear for others but they’ve made an effort to stand up and clarify situations that they may find offensive such as racist stereotypes. Speech codes do not allow people to clarify situations; all speech codes do is silence individuals. These very individuals still do not know what’s wrong and right and will still have a mindset that will offend others in the future when they’re out of college.