There are many things that are looked down upon in the United states, but aren’t necessarily illegal. One of those things being burning the American Flag. There aren’t any written laws against flag desecration, and it should stay that way. First of all, burning the flag is a means of free speech. Freedom of Speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas using one's body and property to anyone who is willing to receive them.
Here in United States, the first amendment protects the freedom of expression, all kind of expression as long as it is not a danger to others. In Europe, and especially in France, freedom of expression is the same, but there is something called “laicité” or secularism which “is a concept of a secular society, connoting the absence of religious involvement in government affairs as well as absence of government involvement in religious affairs” (Wikipedia.org). Let’s start by Phyllis Chesler. In her article “Should the West Ban the Burqa?” the author gives us some facts first then she ends up showing her side. She states the burqa can cause health issues.
Others so strongly that they censor this material so they can no longer view it. The problem is that they are taking the material away from others as well. And some of these people may want to view this material. To censor something on the Web makes it unfair to people who do not deem it inappropriate. Therefore, material on the Web deemed inappropriate should not be censored.
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.
Hate speech or other speeches that can cause harm to society’s welfare should not be disclosed under any circumstances. The topic of free speech has been one of the most controversial subjects. There will always be a conflict of interest unless we can reach an agreement to what extent should Freedom of Speech be allowed. To many, Freedom of Speech should be defended at all cost. They believe that Freedom of Speech is a part of our entire way of life.
Abuses by the sovereign power are acceptable as long as it maintains peace within the society. According to Thomas Hobbes, the sovereign power has control over judicial, military and civil matters. Because the subjects of the civil society gave up their freedom of decision in order for the sovereign power to act for them, the individuals cannot break the contract between them and the sovereign, based on the actions that he undertakes in order to maintain peace within the society, but if the sovereign does not act with this principle as its goal, the subjects are allowed to break the social contract and seek the guidance of another sovereign power. The sovereign power is above the common law, as it is him that creates it and can simply change it at his will. He cannot be arrested or put to death by the people.
With this being said, society only has the right to restrict behavior on the basis of justice, and not because society deems it to be immoral. Within the Principle of Liberty, Mill also claims that it is not acceptable for society to put restrictions on an individual’s conduct, for reasons that they feel would be in the best interest of that person. The majority only has the right to develop laws that confine the conduct of individuals with the purpose of protecting the basic rights of others; otherwise they would be obstructing that person’s right to individuality. Mill believes that everyone is entitled to certain moral rights that cannot be denied. Every member of society is entitled to rights of security of his person and property, as well as basic liberties such as freedom of opinion and the right to live his life as he so chooses.
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. Slowing building into a common belief that the people in the colonies had the same rights as those of Britain, and asking for the same rights. After the government chose to ignore their rights, and tax more or in and out of the colonies did the American raise arms to separate from the tyrant rule of Britain. We still find certain laws unjust and willingly break them to bring forth the point of wrongdoing, and that issues need to be addressed in today’s society for the betterment of our children. We have people that chose to not wear their seatbelt in their vehicle.
The colonists believed that they should have separate laws from Britain because they are not directly represented in parliament. When the colonists continued to disobey the new laws, Britain enforced a harsher set of laws, known as the intolerable acts, to show the colonies that Britain was angry for the Boston Tea Party. This further angered the colonists and caused them to rethink the idea of a rebellion. The colonies as well violated the rights they were fighting for, by
One of the reasons given against King George of England for the American Revolution was that he refused to allow the American Colonies the benefits of jury trial. The ideal purpose of a jury trial is that an accused person is given the opportunity to convince a group of his or her peers regarding his or her innocence. So, the same values that the accused cherishes are held by the jurors. Katz states that the