The overbreadth doctrine differs from the void-for-vagueness doctrine as it applies more toward violations of Constitutional rights rather than criminal situations. The most commonly protected activity that the overbreadth doctrine prohibits infringement upon is the First Amendment of the Constitution. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech rights of the people, when a law is found to be overbroad it is commonly restricting the rights of the people to express themselves freely. An overbroad law may be so restricting the people may decide not to participate in an activity for fear of being charged with a
It can be seen from different angles since many countries are determined to live in a free expression society but others want to enforce censorship in many situations. Countries that are against censorship is mainly because it can be very powerful in the sense that it can control what is shown on the news. It may present false statements and mislead the people in to believing things that are not true. If censored, everything would have to pass first through the government, and they may change some stories to please them. This can lead to only showing favoritism for certain brands or groups; companies may get to control the information that gets to the country.
Simply, people will feel safe in the society they live in. Negative: There are also negative sides when it comes to freedom of speech. Then the word “abuse” comes in. Some people use internet to abuse freedom of speech, anonymously. One could write everything one would without begin identified.
This is because they feel anonymous and can act as rude as they like without immediate effect of consequence. ()This creates allows the lack of civil online society, that we will explore throughout the report() Years ago civil discourse only arose when stated
One voice does not make any difference, regardless how much effort is taken by that person unless he or she collaborates with few others who shares the mutual thought. The true freedom of speech lies at the social network. Malaysians are able to post or start a topic in a social network, gathering followers who agree to the opinion and thoughts. The opinion is however not usually brought to the government directly, most awaits a government represented to notice the matter and brought to the government for further act. There have been few groups who used the freedom of speech to react certain things against the government but they were denied by the government and also were prioritised.
2. Disadvantages of regulations/censorship 2.1 compromising the freedom of speech Censorship compromises the freedom of speech in many different ways. Freedom of speech refers to the right to speak without censorship or being restraint by a higher authority of the organization or country. For example, Compromising the freedom of speech will not allow the society to voice out their negative thoughts or to protest at a government or a government-related event. This example clearly shows that freedom of speech is being compromised as people are unable to voice out what they truly feel and are mostly forced to keep their opinions to themselves as voicing these opinions will make the rest of the society think in a different way and steer them away to generate other ideas or thoughts.
For better or worse, we are inextricably linked to the media. We are now living a media culture and its influence is becoming very pervasive (Mohd Hamdan Adnan 2003) There is one law in Malaysia that protects media freedom, Article 10 of the Constitution. It also notes that there are limits to this freedom, and these limits are, generally, defined by the Government. Media freedom is defined the freedom of communicating and expressing through media including various electronic media and published materials. Freedom of the press is essential to democracy, but like other freedoms, it may also complicate the governing process.
Security protects democracy. Political systems sometimes may have to take exceptional and emergency measures to ensure its survival. Surveillance may have to be intensified. That may in turn require sacrificing certain individual freedoms. Critics have expressed concern over the extent to which surveillance affects democratic life.
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. As a coin has two sides, Hate speech law has also positive impact and bad impact like adversely affect on social attitudes, violate the freedom of speech and psychological harm. We should not try to stop hate speech law but we have to continue trying to minimize causing harm to other ====h I accept all Criticism from any one, however not all of people who characterized by good behavior and politely Speak. I cant accept Speak in a rude, offensive and aggressive way their says even if it was true and right.
Modern technology is not always a good thing, sometimes it needs to be limited. Nobody wants to feel as if they are being watched. Truthfully, if they have social media accounts, they are being watched. Facebook’s entire business model revolves around them being able to share your information (Anderson 1). Typically, if companies were caught doing this there would be an outrage.