These restrictions are related to content based restrictions. As a result hate speech is lawfully prohibited whereas in United States of America the prohibitations of some speeches related to racism have been found invalid. The restrictions which are related to racial and religious have been upheld in India. Such measures are taken so that communal harmony must be maintained. Nazi demonstrations are prohibited in India on the grounds of public order.
Banned Books are books that are prohibited by law or to which free access is not permitted by other means. Banning books is against the writers right for freedom of speech, which is the first amendment. Students have the right to read, reading is not illegal, so why ban books? If a reader is mature enough to handle some curse words or bad behavior then they should be able to read banned books. Some people believe books should not be banned in schools/libraries but just because you do not like it does not mean it should be taken away, that is the authors freedom of speech.
Concealed carry is said to help deter and reduce crime, albeit it actually puts the general public’s safety at risk especially when the firearms are misused, either intentionally or unintentionally. 1. Concealed carry laws are inconsistent between each state and permits should not be given out to individuals with little or no training. 2. Background checks are not required and do not prevent people with criminal records or a history of mental instability from acquiring a weapon.
Pornography can only be banned if considered obscene, which was determined during the Ferber Case. In the case of Miller v. California,) Ferber did not want to reflect on what the state considered obscene. Ferber was more interested in prosecuting those who promote the
Books should not be able to be banned because it closes the door for great lessons and deprives people of learning about the world around them. Books should not be banned because it deprives mature readers of information they might need to know about. Arizona State University says that we need to
For instance, doctors should not falsify information during a clinical trial in order to pass a drug. These arguments are centered on a need to adhered to morals rather than with self-interest in mind. Non-moral argument on the other hand is an argument that does not contain a moral premise. Naturalistic fallacy (“is-ought fallacy”) is the assumption that things should be a certain way because a certain thing is this way. For example, someone might argue that eating candy is harmful for one’s teeth and thus one should prohibit from eating candy.
It violates both 1st and 14th amendment. The 1st amendment forbids the government from taking “favor” respecting one religion over another, and the 14th amendment directs citizenship rights and equal protection of the law. However, Ted Cruz believes that Muslims should not be given rights of freedom, and free speech, but should be scrutinized when they are the potentially dangerous. Therefore shall be disciplined with” arbitrary interference” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 12) within their personal life. Innocent Muslims are singled out for not being guilty of terrorism.
In theory, the abolishment of guns would not have an effect on the levels of gun-related violence as gun control laws do not deter crime; the improper use of guns and firearms falling into the hands of the mentally-ill and unstable deters crime. Gun control will infringe upon the right to self-defense and deny citizens a sense of safety, and lastly, criminals will find their own means to obtain weapons illegally regardless of what laws are set in
the customer should be permitted from buying a firearm unless given permission or permit to do so. Of course, one might be thinking “not all mental illnesses are dangerous!” and that person is absolutely correct. Blaming all mental illnesses is simply wrong, if anything, mental illnesses are the least thing to worry about compared to alcoholics or ones who have problems with controlling anger and own firearms. “Federal laws prohibit the purchase and possession of guns by anyone who is an “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.” But the statute ignores alcohol abuse. That is also a mistake.
That would not happen if teens were allowed in every store and resturant.Therefore, businesses should not have the right to ban teenagers. The business would be infringing the rights of teenagers if they banned them. The stores or restaurants would be violating the Constitutional rights of teenagers. The Amendment that made