On the other hand, people might argue, if some people stop obeying the law in the name of justice, others will stop following them completely. The rules and regulations of a country is what keeps it successful, and these rules sometimes bring success in the wrong ways. Many times laws are unjust morally, but are beneficial to the economy, upper class, or politicians. These groups might not think the law as unjust, but nonetheless, some laws are made to be broken. For example, the Sedition Acts signed by President James Madison were against what the United States of America stood for, and those who obliged to this law did not do the country justice by not
Upholding the freedom of speech, though, requires that responsibility and restraint be practiced by the government, the people, and the individual. Admittedly, keeping the delicate balance of freedom of speech and governmental regulation can prove to be tough work for the leaders of America, especially in light of the many advances made toward online communication. Everyday our government is faced with questions regarding how much speech can/should be censored, who decides what words are lawful and which are not, and at what point does protecting one person_Ñés freedom of speech begin to pose a threat to the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of other citizens. Personally, I endorse the
The power of social media retaliation and judgement has become astonishing. In reality, I could intentionally post specific opinions that could land me on no-fly list and cause quite a large uproar from antagonists in a matter of hours. Alter makes an agreeable point by saying we all have the right to disagree with each other, but not dismantle their personage. Being publicly proven wrong and having the chance to defend yourself, or reflect and apologize is all that should be preferred. Americans are fortunate to live in a country of free speech; however, it has created a society that nearly inhibits itself from the right which is exactly not what America stands for.
For the sake of successful functioning of any democratic system people have to be able to and should be allowed to form their own ideas. One must be able to receive many different ideas and information from many sources, reflecting many different perspectives, before being able to see the truth. Freedom of expression is highly fundamental and essential for the functioning of our pluralist society. Freedom of expression is not only indispensible for each individual’s self-fulfilment but it also constitutes one of the essential premises of a democratic society and one of the elementary conditions for its progress
These harms are: (a) harms to certain individuals which consist in their coming to have false beliefs as a result of those acts of expression; (b) harmful consequences of acts performed as a result of those acts of expression, where the connection between the acts of expression and the subsequent harmful act consists merely in the fact that the act of expression led the agents to believe (or increased their tendency to believe) these acts to be worth performing” (Scanlon. 213). We can see the influence of Mill’s Harm Principle which states that the only justification for intervening or restricting the actions of an individual is to prevent harm to others (Mill. 94). Another important concept is Scanlon’s description of the interests of the various stakeholders in the right to expression; these incudes participant interests which is to speak to and bring something to the attention of a wide audience, audience interests include
Human rights, then again, are presented by the state and have turned into a catch-all term for anything we want and consider essential. Thus, while natural rights, (for example, life, freedom, and property) are rights that legislature protects from encroachment by others, human rights, (for example, "education" and "justice") are frequently things that administration is committed to
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.
In today’s society drugs are seen is bad and un-ethical. However, it is just the perspective on how everyone views society. If we are told something is wrong, and see someone doing it, you are more likely to be the one to “point the finger.” Yes, drug legalization sounds horrible and of course it would be considered un-ethical but this is what we need to change. We need to change our perspective on certain matters and need to focus on the more important issues in our society. Decriminalization is the lessening of criminal penalties in relation to certain acts, perhaps retroactively, though perhaps regulated permits or fines might still apply.
This can lead to some discord and animosity, such as brawls, intense arguments, and in some cases war. One may call me fatuous for making these points, because one may think I agree to the existence of good and evil because I stated it is artificial. Well, be prepared to be debunked, as when one references good and evil, they use no scientific evidence of its existence. It’s typically based off of one’s moral compass, law, and literature, but is never genuinely based on a highly accredited scientific source. However, one may argue that you can use people with mental issues who do crimes are evil.
It is hard to separate the cases between instrumental aggression and bias motivation. I think not every bias motivation reflected as hate crime or breach the hate speech law. In some time you have the ability to like some one or not, so hate crime law could make many problems **** instigate retaliatory attacks. In conclusion, society would be better with more control and more law to live in an organized and pleasant community of humanity. Hate speech law does not prevent of exercising the freedom of speech but it has been found for reduce using freedom of speech and minimize making problems to other or causing harm to them.