They think people can just stop using the internet from the moment when they are called names. In “Sacrificing the First Amendment to catch Cyberbullies” it says “Children should be educated to manage and avoid offensive situations on the Internet. If the child in question can’t handle that, they should not use the Internet. It is that simple.” This is wrong because it is not that simple to just “unplug”, since they might still be further bullied, without them knowing, and would want to know what people are saying about them. Another fact is shown in the: text “The Dangers of Cyberbullying,” it says “Technology has become an essential part of our society and our homes’ use of technology has extended beyond being just simple entertainment”.
The answers are controversial. Indeed, guns protect normal people from injury. If you are along at home and robbers and thiefs with invasive weapons and tools break into your house, at the time holding an gun must provide much courage you to threaten them away. Nevertheless, I insist that banning guns is the best choice and decision because there is an existing solution. Government can just ban guns of all of citizens.
Schools have been evaluated by different organizations on whether or not they should be involved in off-campus cyberbullying. Some believe that they can be involved in off-campus to stop suicide or emotional distress and to stop them from putting the victim through lots of pain. Others believe that schools shouldn’t intervene in cyberbullying outside of schools because it affects their right to the first amendment which is “The freedom of speech”. Cyberbullying should be taken into the hands of the school if it happens off-campus because if nothing happens then it can get a child hurt or even killed. Students who are targeted by cyberbullies have no way to escape from the attackers brutality, who can drive the victim to suicide or self harm.
In addition, when the law enforcement believes searching a citizen is reasonable, no excessive force shall be used. Electronic surveillance is also under the Fourth Amendment, so the law enforcement cannot watch you with any type of electronics of any sort. Furthermore, your personal items: backpack, house, or phone are considered your property so the law enforcement can search any of them without the citizen’s permission or proved as reasonable. Although of all of the advantages of the Fourth Amendment, a disadvantage is that for the law enforcement it makes accumulating evidence
Peoples response to bullying can lead to affecting their security as it can lead to more bullying. A part of cyber security is being aware of how to block people if a person is in a situation where they are being bullied(Magid). Prevention of both topics are the same, scare tactics are not effective and people prefer honest information concerning the
Prabhakar Pillai, author or “Pros and Cons of Censorship”, states “It [censorship] prevents the public display of disrespect to any particular individual or community.” Racism, sexism, and other forms of hates towards a group of people wouldn’t be all over the internet. Cyberbullying could be diminished. Geoff Yang then goes on to say, “We need censorship to keep the dimly lit corners of cyberspace safe.” Nowadays, simply voicing your opinion, or even not owning up to society’s idea of “perfect”, can result in cyberbullying. Censorship could even save lives. Prabhakar Pillai, author of “Pros and Cons of Censorship”, says “Scenes of people consuming alcohol or smoking influence people to copy them.” Seeing others suffer from substance abuse may peak others’ curiosity, which could lead them down the same path.
The main purpose will oversee the offender behavior and restrain the offender within prefer barrier set by the parole officer and enhance public security. In order keep society safe; sex offenders shall not have contact with children. Children are prone to be a target by offenders since children are an easy target which they are weaker and cannot protect themselves from other stronger persons. Therefore, parole officers need to notify the parolee that he or she shall not to live with or live near children and have no contact with children. In addition, offenders shall not enter or be near an educational institution.
I believe that when we are attacked in our own homes you have the right to use deadly force if needed to protect yourself or a loved one. The reason for this is because you never know what the intruder’s intentions are whether it is to steal or to cause harm. Also retreating to your own home may put you at risk. For example, let’s say an intruder broke into your home and you decide to hide in your closet you are potentially leaving yourself in greater danger because you’re not able to contact help from your location and if discovered by the intruder you’ll be in a disadvantage to react because of the limited space you’re in. Also if we didn’t have the choice to use deadly force you could set yourself for future attacks.
The FBI seems to be making strides in preventing terrorist attacks, but this action should be made without social profiling and trolling the internet. Also, the repeal of Net Neutrality is another right being stripped from Americans. We deserve the right to an accessible internet that does not economically discriminate. All in all, the government does not have the right to monitor or limit internet content, as it skews our checks and balances system. Without these checks and balances we evolve into a country that oppresses its citizens.