However, if the smoking ban in the public were legalised it has violated democracy and such legalisation is seems to be excessive and unnecessary interference of the government (Scottish Government Riaghattas n.d). The government should not create a policy or law that is forcefully telling people what they can do and what they cannot do. Instead of that, they should focus on educating people on the negative effect of smoking in the public and make sure the smokers are aware of what their bad habit can cause to the public. As a result, the smoker can choose to avoid smoking at the public without feeling that their right has been restricted by the government. In the meantime, the non-smoker can choose to avoid
Something allowed in the United States could easily be prohibited in Arabia or Pakistan, everything depends directly if the ideas are taken as disrespectful or insulting to a person, religion, among others, and are all control and regulated by each state government. The control in the media is, as any other government action, full of pros and cons about the reasons and results it gives. On one hand, it is important to put a limit on the kind of information, images, videos and others that can get to the population. Sometimes, the citizen from a specific nation is not ready to understand fully the material given to him, especially if this citizen is a child. Violence, sex, drugs, alcohol and other –no fully understandable topics- for some part of the public need to be limited in order to protect childhood and guaranteeing a correct development in a healthy environment.
Why is freedom of speech so important? Obviously having freedom of speech is to have the freedom to voice out our mind and opinions without the fear of censorship. All humans ought to be allowed to voice our views and thoughts to the society. Furthermore, to speak up for ourselves is an important development of society and it is necessary for democracy. Freedom of speech protects everyone and enables people to attain information
Freedom of speech and expression is regarded as the first condition of liberty. Freedom of speech plays a crucial role in the formation of public opinion on social, political and economic matters. It embraces within its scope, the freedom of propagation and interchange of ideas, dissemination of information which would help formation of one’s opinion and viewpoint and debates on matters of public concerns.  Freedom of speech and expression implies the right to express one 's own convictions and opinions freely by words of mouth, writing, printing, pictures or any other mode. The phrase ‘speech and expression’ used in Article 19(1)(a) has broad connotation.
Having freedom of speech is to have the freedom and privilege to voice out our minds and opinions, all humans ought to be allowed to voice our opinions and thoughts. To speak up for ourselves is the important development of the society and it is necessary for democracy. Freedom of speech is the practice of the society. Nobody denies would that it is also an essential humans right, and without freedom of speech there will be no such thing as public liberty. Moreover, we should be able to share our speech virtually to allow ideas to be freely exchanged.
Censorship can be described as the act of cutting out certain material that can be considered obscene or inconvenient for the community. This material can be found in social media such as in the TV, radio, or the internet. Censorship can be challenged because of the first amendment: freedom of speech. Free expression is the right of expressing opinions and ideas without any fear of being restrained or censored. However, freedom of speech does not include the right to incite actions that would harm others or the distribution of obscene material (Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 2000).
Any expression, therefore, that impedes on one person or a group of people should be stopped because it has not done anything to benefit anybody. Mill’s statements on the freedom of speech is what I will rely on for my argument. Mill’s view on the freedom of speech is still relevant today because he does not take the view that there shouldn’t be any freedom of speech, but that it should be limited at certain times and this issue is very relevant in today’s society. Mill states a bold statement in the footnote at the beginning of Chapter II of On Liberty, in defence of the freedom of speech ‘If the arguments of the present chapter are of any validity, there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered’. Mill clearly is in the defence of the freedom of speech here because this liberty has to exist with everything so that we have ‘absolute freedom of
Media censorship also limits people from obtaining important informations that needs to be spread among the people of the world, e.g. latest technological trends and awareness of infectuous diseases6. In the end, media censorship is actually just a matter of what material to show and what not to, by considering the possible effects toward its audience. It acts as a preventive method to filter us from unwanted influences that can go through materials we see everyday. Lack of censoring or even too much of it can cause seriuous harm.
Basic Principles and Criteria In Western democracies freedom of the press implies that all people should have the right to express themselves in writing or in any other way of expression of personal opinion or creativity. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights indicates: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers.” The concept of freedom of the press is often covered by the same laws as freedom of speech, thereby giving equal treatment to media and individuals. This philosophy of freedom is usually accompanied by legislation ensuring various degrees of
Strong actors can violate sovereignty and get away with it. But since I mentioned that the international relations is anarchy, which means that it’s a world of self-help and also means there is no political authority. Nobody can be controlled for example, if two states are into a war nobody can tell to a state to do something or to stop a state from doing something illegitimate, the international organizations like the United Nations are not that strong to do it. And if you have any problem you go fix it on your own or ask and convince any other state to help