Argumentative Essay: The First Amendments

Another reason they outlawed the flag is because it wasn’t showing any respect for people that fought in a war and got no respect for people that died. Also, people want to have it down because there was starting to be fights about the discussion of the flag being banned or being back up. Also people are also wanting it banned because it has been causing too much trouble in places that started to have. People want it down also because it is a sign of slavery and it is a symbol of a deadly attack on the

This example clearly shows that freedom of speech is being compromised as people are unable to voice out what they truly feel and are mostly forced to keep their opinions to themselves as voicing these opinions will make the rest of the society think in a different way and steer them away to generate other ideas or thoughts. Another example that compromises the freedom of speech will be allowing the younger generation to understand and think on their own about certain subjects such as pornography or homosexuality. This example clearly shows that freedom of speech is being compromised as the younger generation are unclear or sure of what to think about such topics as they are unable to think for themselves and decide. The younger generation, most likely from the age of 12 and above, should be able to think on their own as to why it is not safe and not being told to think they are not safe as this would be controlling what they are thinking. Hence, Freedom of speech is being compromised as they are unable to think with

If they knew how to critically think, they may have approached the situation differently. The video “The Triggering: Has Political Correctness Gone Too Far?” also features protests from students in the form of heckling throughout the event. The heckling also shows a lack of open-mindness; shouting random phrases is disruptive and instead of listening to their opponents, they try to shut them down. They also refuse to self-correct and continue to disrupt the talk despite the obvious reality that the talk was going to continue on regardless of what they did or

However, we don’t feel they should be exempt from punishment due to their freedom of speech; their posts were gravely inappropriate and offensive. They intentionally discriminated against a group of people; they had no regards to other’s statuses as human beings which in our honest opinion is extremely unethical. Every human being should be treated with respect regardless of their culture, ethnicity, race, gender, etc. Johnny's leadership roles within his school simply doesn’t convince us that he was bullied into discriminating others, so we feel that he too should face the consequences. As a leader he should have known better.

Some have stated that there are other methods of protest to convey the message in a less disrespectful and violent inducing way. Although those are valid points the question is, whose fault is it for the sense of disrespect and violence? Much like Martin Luther King’s protest, flag burning is often nonviolent, but people’s reaction to it causes violence. The point of flag burning is to express political feelings, the violence and feeling of disrespect are side effects opposers create. Also, as previously mentioned, some dislike the method of protest used in flag burning.

On the other hand, media censorship is also used for wrong motives, mostly by the government who is trying to protect themselves from anti-politics ideas or any other movement against them. Censorship became at some point a weapon apply to keep citizens ignorant, by denying the entry or spread of sensitive information inside the country, authorities assure the status quo remaining, prohibiting to their nation the opportunity to learn more and to think differently, all because this could cause the loss of their power. Media censorship is a delicate matter where there is not a perfect position about it. As is known, media is one of the most important instruments use to communicate opinions in a short period of time to a big part of the world, this makes it a very power device with the capacity to change everything just with one word and give to the society great benefits, but it can also be used in negative ways, affecting directly the good relationship between communities, all critical aspects that make you think it is imperative to establish rational basic rules and boundaries to avoid the media become a dangerous threat to

Unit 6: Criminalization and Securitization In the lecture, I think that when individuals deviate from the social norm, there will be a lot of criticism, opposition, and hate. Even though violating social norms don't have legal outcomes, it can impact a person’s social interactions because it can make people feel uncomfortable when they are surrounded by them and can also label them as abnormal or weird. For example, there are no laws about homosexual people walking down the street holding hands. If people in my town see them walking and holding hands, they will get a shocked reaction and get weird stares or maybe even avoid them. I think that breaking social norms is not always bad because you can break a social norm and have a positive impact

Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else…” (Tupper 1). The reason citizens have individual rights in modern society is so they don’t have to be the same and they can be used by everyone. The reason citizens have individual rights in 2081 is to serve the bottom one percent of them who aren’t smart and who aren’t able to do much. Individual right in today 's society are as said before in this paragraph, they are so citizen are different and so they can’t be control. Take the first amendment for example “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (Constitute 1, from U.S. Constitution).

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” -First Amendment, Bill of Rights James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, granted every American citizen the rights to freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition through the First Amendment. Perhaps the most controversial of these freedoms throughout history is the freedom of religion. The strength of the First Amendment was tested in the landmark case of Engel v. Vitale in which ten students spoke out against

“no religious outlook or Weltanschauung, can enjoy a privileged status, let alone be adopted as the official view of the state” I found this passage noteworthy because it demands that no religious outlook be put before another, but that is exactly what happens and has been happening, all these years. I would like to say that I think the reason there is such a lack of equality with different countries and “cultures” and why we are in constant war is because of this exact reason; religion. Most religious people always think their religion is better than another persons and this causes conflict. The countries laws reflect their religious views in the morals that they choose to have. If religion wasn 't such a big concept would we find peace between different cultures and countires?