To be honest I wouldn’t give up my freedom for increased security from terrorism. Benjamin Franklin stated, “They who would give up essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.” I couldn’t have said it any better. We have been fighting for our rights for a very long time. Many people have died to ensure that people have liberties. So why should I give up these rights that have been long fought for.
With an increased amount of surveillance, a range of rights that we obtain from the U.S Constitution and the Bill of Rights are affected, some of which include freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of association and assembly. With increased surveillance, most people learn to choose words carefully before talking in public, as well as in private, reducing freedom of speech. With your actions being monitored, who you associate yourself with becomes important as well. By choosing to be around with suspected terrorists, the chance of being put into the suspected terrorist activity list would increase. This effectively shuts down freedom of association and assembly.
The patriot act has in my opion violated the 4th amendment. It has its advantages as far as terrorizim but to normal citzens this is a complete violation of our privacy. bThe late Benjermin Franklin warned us about trading our liberty for sucureity. This act has taken away a lot of our liberties it gives the government way too much power to invade our privacy. They now have unprecedented power to monitor the phone calls, e-mails, without a warrant.
We are maximizing our security, and we are determined to keep this from happening again. Pitts also says, “ you don’t know what we’re capable of. You don’t know what you just started. But you’re about to learn.” Pitts writes this almost as a threat to the terrorists to tell them, they can try again and try to break us but we will get revenge. Pitts uses emotion and logic to persuade the Americans that the terrorists can do what they want to us, but America is tough enough to handle it.
It is an expressed opinion that is protected by the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. Johnson had full rights to burn the flag and say whatever he wanted about it or the government and it was his freedom to do so. Even though it is morally wrong and usually an unacceptable behavior, I believe that the Court did the right thing. They had to put aside personal beliefs and values and interpret the Constitution the way it was written even if it allows people to be a disgrace to the country itself. If the decision had gone in opposition to Johnson, there would have possibly been many upsets concerning people or groups that are very strong supporters of the freedoms that the
because Lopez wasn't able to defend himself and wasn't able to having a hearing and his family wasn't notified either. If the court did not try to stop this it would have affected him and everyone else as well. If you think about it everyone had the right to be heard and the court bringing up that it affected the 14th amendment was a good way to protect the right to a hearing, because using liberty and property (property being education) challenged the court and made a different viewpoint on how the case was projected. Now we’re able to have court ruling for suspensions. which is a good thing and also sinces i'm a student i think it's fair that court hearing is given because without it how would a student be able to defend themselves without anyone to make the decisions if they are right or wrong.
What people don 't understand is that they are taking away their own freedoms with Gun Control. In conclusion, the people for Gun Control are infringing rules that are immovable, and the against it are literally on higher ground because they know that the people for it are trying to fight America, which they are. Gun Control is just one big fight that was started by people that lust for control and use it to pollute the society. Even though gun laws are the top answer for less gun
Words have power and not to just inspire, but to harm, separate, intimidate, and in some cases kill. Although the freedom to say what we wish is a right that every American is given, which speech should be protected and which should not? The line between offensive and harmful language is a very thin one with no real definable border. It is impossible to avoid offending everyone now and days, but attempting to harm another with words to deliberately cause emotional or psychological damage should be unacceptable. Charles Lawrence, Derek Bok, and Gwen Wilde all had interesting perspectives on the first amendment and what controversial ways it is used.
Page 1 of 4 ZOOM Montreyvien JacksonJason ArmstrongEng 112328 September Jackson 1[Type here]Talking SpitWhile some believe freedom of speech violates the rights of others, it is one of the most fundamental rights that individuals enjoy. In this argumentative essay, I’ll discuss why freedom of speech is important, but it’s not the only important right that we have. Yes, freedom of speech should be absolute, but weshould not give anyone the chance to define reasonable restrictions. But 'hate speech ' should strictly be restricted, as it infringes on free speech of others. “Have the courage to follow your heart and intuition.
Many people claim it is a dangerous and risky if prisoners retain the right to vote in political matters. After all, they have somehow violated the laws of the state by committing a crime that led to their imprisonment. But democratic, constitutional states like Germany have not denied prisoners their right to vote. The following essay will argue in favour of that decision. The idea of legal punishment by imprisonment is not revenge but retributivism because the government needs to make sure that these people are eventually able to reclaim a normal life.
You will never know until you have been graded and you get grounded for a bad grade. If students stop getting graded it will help them be more free involving with life. Grades are chains that lock people down. When students get into trouble they are grounded and when parents say that they are
I found a censored quote on the ‘American Library Association’ . The quote stated “First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end.” I believe this quote is stating that first amendment freedom is the most dangerous amendment when readers want and or don’t want the book to be public to all people. I also think the government making the decision is bad because its people deciding, not the government. They can 't just take our rights away from us and decide independently. The quote then said “The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought.” I don’t think we can have a right to think and not have speech.
But there is also the problem that if the NSA become completely transparent, the terrorist and other people the NSA is trying to catch, will have more knowledge as how to not get caught, which would just make the NSA ineffective. Basically the people have to decide whether they want a government that catches terrorists or one that always protects their freedoms. Most parts of the world would rather have a government that catches terrorists and keeps them safe, but unlike these countries, America (excuse my American exceptionalism) has an amendment for their constitution that bans unreasonable search and seizures. The NSA is in a difficult position because it must weigh how transparent they can be to appease the population with how much secrecy they need to function
Having an Honor Code will fracture the trust that students have with teachers. Would the honor Code really be worth all the examples of division among student body and faculty that I talked about. The answer is No, it wouldn’t be, because Fairmont Heights need a balance and it has it. Students keep to themselves and let other students do their own thing and deal with their own problems. The balance is key to the continuation of Fairmont Heights social order and without it, things would be much worse in the the eyes of students like