Censorship by the government is unconstitutional. Censorship can have positive effects on society; however, it hinders freedom of speech, can insight dictatorship, and oppress individuals. The 1st Amendment protects public institutions from having to compromise the ideals of free speech by establishing framework that defines critical rights and responsibilities. American people resort to “more speech not enforced silence” in seeking to resolve our differences in values, sensibilities, and offenses. The effect has restricted newspapers, television, radio, etc.
Freedom of speech and press should achieve the ideal goal from the government and the intervention from the strength groups. In Malaysia Constitution which is Federal Constitution was listed down the freedom of speech but there are others limit that we need to follow including Sedition Act of 1948, the Internal Security Act of 1960, Printing Presses and Publication Act of 1984 and more. Defamation laws affect the work of journalists in Malaysia apparently. The defamation laws just play a role to suppress the freedom of speech, ruling party are holding the ownership and the right to control it. (TengSS, 2010) Once the government has the right to control the media, the freedom of speech and expression is lost and the beginning of dictatorship.
Which means that freedom of speech is not always a sound or just public policy." ' Free speech is the cornerstone of democracy and should be a right that all are entitled to. In the United States the topic of free speech is more contentious as it is written into the constitutional rights, it is a worldwide issue and has come more into focus recently in Ireland. In a recent survey by Claire Byrne 65% of people believe that there should not be a restriction on free speech. Recently a controversial article was published by Nicholas Pell in The Irish Times regarding the alt-right movement, which included glossary of terms, which people found sexist and racist.
It is no secret that Western media has its fair share of Islamophobic stories to report or Muslim villains to cast in their latest hit movie. Their anti-Muslim sentiments are evident every time you turn on the T.V. and see blatant Islamophobia disguised under “journalism” or “free speech”. The reasons behind the media’s constant portrayal of Islam in a bad light is fueled by several causes such as Muslim extremists, the West’s wrong interpretation of Islam’s true message, and their inability to comprehend the Islamic lifestyle. Radical Muslims and their extreme acts in the name of Islam are the root cause to the rise of Islamophobia.
Still, there are differing opinions in politics on what qualifies as hate speech and where the line should be drawn to upkeep the well-being of other while allowing them to express their opinions freely. In a debate between Julia O’Reilly and Ross Walsh, two notable political minds in American politics, Julia O’Reilly argues: “free[dom] [of] speech does not equal speech free from consequences. When you utilise your right to freedom of speech you implicitly agree that the results of that speech are your responsibility, whether they are positive or negative, and you should be held accountable for them.” (REBUTTAL (Against) – Ross Walsh) The freedom that comes from expression does not erase the responsibility that comes with the consequences
Recent cases led us to question if there should be more limits placed upon free speech. Many often abuse this right to provoke, offend, to spread lies and hate; some cases inspire violence such as the Charlie Hebdo incident. In other words, total freedom of speech can lead to breakdown in law and order. Therefore, I do not agree that freedom of speech should be protected at all costs. One argument against absolute freedom of speech is that it can be used to provoke and inspire violence.
It acknowledges also that life is a human right , and this makes the abuses committed by diplomats our most fundamental human rights violation owing to the fact that other abuses stem form the violation of a human life. This thesis argues that immunity granted a diplomat should be attached to conduct alone in other words, functional immunity. It contends that any harm done to anyone by a diplomat-who ought to be a responsible person of high intellect -in the ordinary course of his’ (diplomat’s) official activities should be able to fall under diplomatic immunity and thus should follow. This does not extend to acts of violence. As the most controversial and dissenting issue in recent times, the central objective of this study is to attempt to
An example that shows a greater understanding of the theme is from the article, “Terrorism: A High Stakes Convenience Label” by Cara Cancelmo, who explains the negative effects of being labeled as a terrorist in society. The author states, “The subjective definition of the terrorism label precipitates that not only does the government have the power and discretion to determine whose behaviors constitute terrorist activity, they also and to
This adaptation causes the Thai legal system to have different defamation laws for ordinary people and for the head of the state, aka King Rama VI, the current king of Thailand. The first similarity is that both laws are existed to protect a person from defamation whether the accusation is true or false. According to Section 326 of the Thai Criminal Code, defamation is defined as “an act of imputing anything about the third party in a manner which is aimed to impair the person’s reputation or place the person in contempt or hatred by others.” The same goes to the Section 112 of the Thai Criminal Code, lese majeste, containing the clause “The king shall be enthroned in a position of revered worship and shall not be violated. No person shall expose the king to any sort of accusation or action and whoever defames, insults or threatens the king, queen, heir-apparent, or regent shall be punished with imprisonment of three to fifteen years.” Not only have it been used for protecting people’s reputations, but it also have
Article 10 of the Malaysian Constitution, looking into the sensitiveness of these issues, specifies a list of restrictions, which limit the right of free speech on the grounds of securing political stability and racial harmony. Furthermore, freedom of political speech and the political rights of individuals are secondary to the goals of national prosperity and national development, and the government is given to enforce some form of political discipline in order to serve the greater social good. However, the Malaysian government has taken a step further to control not only hate and racial speech, but also any political speech that seriously challenges the government. In this regard, the Malaysian government can be blamed for being less democratic based for its confinement on political