Rule: The Child Pornography Protection Act 1996 (CPPA) due to the advancement in technology prohibits and penalizes not only child porn but anything in its likeliness such as computerized images or young adults portraying minors. The Government submits that virtual child pornography whets the appetites of pedophiles and encourages them to engage in illegal conduct. The government also submits that it aids in the development and spread of child pornography. The court accepts these interests, but rejects the governments argument: 1. There is counterweights to the governments argument: a.
"Moral desert" is just a philosophical notion that a person deserves something based on his or her actions, and it is not cleared up by equality retributivism because equality retributivism calls for us to "behave barbarically to those who are guilty of barbaric crimes" (Nathanson). Another example of this is imagine a rapist. It would be barbaric and morally unacceptable to rape the rapist. Even though it may seem that those who kill should be killed themselves, it really isn't moral and is not universally
Kara’s strongest argument was that adopting the resolution is a violation of the 1st Amendment, freedom of speech etc. She justified her argument by providing evidence that adopting the resolution is unconstitutional because it has not made it through the US Supreme Court, thus the government has little control on media violence. This went against Corissa’s argument that if the government can have control over children watching pornography then the same control should be implemented for children watching media violence. This is an example of an argument from principle because it appeals to values such as justice or equality (Herrick). Furthermore, I believe Corissa won the debate.
Devlin would have thought the act of polyandry to be immoral and disintegrates the society however, being a moderate moralism he would not have wanted to intervene with the privacy of other unless the act has become very widely practiced and start causing harm to the society. However, if the was a law to be passed to make polyandry legal, Devlin would have disagree with this because once it has been made legal it will drive and encourage many to conduct this immoral act. Devlin did not say that every immoral act is to be prohibited. Devlin used the jury box morality of average right minded citizens where moral standards of behaviour are the standards of behaviour of a reasonable man. Will a reasonable man think the act of polyandry as something good and to be done?
Critics of the insanity plea often contend that a crime is still a crime, and it does not matter who committed it, sane or insane. Opponents of this defense also question, “They are criminals, so who cares if they are sent away?” In truth, it is still a crime, however, this crime cannot be considered guilty, if the defendant had no criminal intent to do so. When dealing with a person who is mentally incapable to comprehend and do certain things, one must analyze their thought process. Some people are eminently schizophrenic, and believe they are doing the world a favor by “eliminating” another individual. They believe that their “target” is going to do wrong to the world, another person, or themselves.
Many say no torture because they fear it would “corrupt democratic institutions, diminish our moral authority in the world, cause torture to become routine and widespread in society, and arouse worldwide resentment and anger towards us” (688). They would say that torture is not morally permissible, and does not truly work. A non-consequentialist might believe that torture disregards human life, and is disrespectful, no matter what the other has done. They would say that the answer to torture “is an absolutist no - torture is the use of a person merely as a means, a clear instance of a lack of respect for a human being. Torture is therefore always wrong” (687).
Would you want people watching your every move? How about knowing where you are? This informative essay will explain why implanting a tracking device in you or your child, is not a good idea! Having a device in your child people to know where they are is a horrible idea! Not only does it bring discomfort for your child, but it also breaks the law of the fourth amendment of privacy.
Although being able to break-up with someone face to face is the best choice, but everything will become extremely impersonal. Young people also say things that they would never say to a person’s face in the social media. Audacity like this can leads to problems such as cyber bullying. This is because they never know the actual person exists behind the avatar which can encourage hostility and exclusionary behavior. In a nutshell, we should believe in technology and support it but only to an extent.
Which also falls under the right to freedom of speech. Even though bullies might use anonymity to get away with their actions, without anonymous commenting the internet would be a more dangerous place. Anonymous comments do more good than bad. Anonymous comments should be allowed on the internet because if not it would be unconstitutional, there would be more identity theft, and so people can
Another reason for cyber-harassment is people want to prove themselves and validate their popularity. Most people who cyberbully believe it is not a big deal and do not see the pain that they cause. Instead of empathizing with the victims being bullied, hurting others makes such people feel dominant. Moreover, the bullies, sometimes, believe that the more individuals they torment the more powerful they become. They can use any methods which may cause terrible damage for the sufferers’ mind, just to diminish the social status of whom they are bullying.