Celebrities have already lost their privacy and also human should be equal in front of the law and god, so celebrities should not face stricter penalties. Celebrities certainly have more influence on people because they are public figures. Celebrities lived in the public, so when they committed crimes their punishment will also show on the television news and newspaper everywhere. People can easily saw the consequences and warn themselves not to do the same thing.
Ameera Abu-Ali Mr. Creal World Literature 10 Block: A February 18, 2016 Censorship’s impact on society According to Merriam Webster dictionary, censorship is what helps “remove things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society, etc.” (Merriam-Webster). Censorship was used to prevent harmful information or data to be in the public eye. It is what was used as a necessary source to avoid damaging details about certain things to get out.
The document consisted of acts/ laws that, if violated by citizens; they would have suffered consequences. For example, the document proclaimed that if, “any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States” (Sedition Act), would have been convicted, punished, and imprisoned. Our fellow opponents, the Republicans, stated that with this law, we eliminated freedom of speech and press that was granted by the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. That was quite incorrect. This was a necessary precaution for the prosperity and stability of our nation.
The "Constitution Day" article makes a good argument of stating how the Constitution has changed and how we should have listen to George Washington 's warnings. Yet this article bored me due to the overuse of purple prose instead of just out right saying how much the Constitution has been warped. It 's a good argument and I can agree with the fact that the documents that shape the US have been used against the population but I could due with less round about talking and a direct claim.
As such, equality law seeks to remedy a problem through imposing certain injunctions in order to solve a problem. However, one important aspect of the 7th amendment is that it bars the judges from overruling the findings of a jury unless there was such a violation of a common law; hence, in all but a few cases, the ruling of the jury will be regarded as a violation of the 7th amendment. Further, the 7th amendment makes specifications that the jury has to be unanimous in all civil cases. Therefore, in my own view, the 7th amendment is beneficial since it protects people from the rights that are abused by the government. It achieves this by ensuring that the government cannot simply lock people up in jails or prions; hence by doing so it protects the citizens from unnecessary tyranny by the government.
”(cia.gov) Also, censorship helps protect people. During WWII, the government censored many different newspapers and news bulletins because they had appeals to the American people from Nazi leaders and Japanese leaders trying to manipulate the American people. The Government would restrict these news sources because they would decrease the American morale and make them want to end the war effort (Blankley). Censorship, in limited forms, is right and necessary
Many governments use censorship to protect their citizens, however, a censorship concealing the truth and hindering individuality is harmful and impedes society progression as demonstrated in Fahrenheit 451. The negative impacts of government oppression and the literary devices of irony, realism, allusion, conflict, and symbolism Ray Bradbury used to develop the theme of censorship in Fahrenheit 451 will be discussed below using America as the reflection of the broader society. In Fahrenheit 451, Bradbury used irony to portray several methods the authority has executed to oppress information and control the population. A government may employ various methods of censoring media contents from banning the use of such media to making the media content disappear completely from the face of the earth which amounts to societal oppression with regards to information access (Harrison 59).
But are we in the future to be prevented from inflicting these punishments because they are cruel? If a more lenient mode of correcting vice and deterring others from the commission of it would be invented, it would be very prudent in the Legislature to adopt it; but until we have some security that this will be done, we ought not to be restrained from making necessary laws by any declaration of this kind’ “ (Bomboy). In other words, Livermore was arguing that all citizens who commit horrible crime do deserve severe punishments for the crimes that they commit, and until the government figures out a way to place restrictions and guidelines on the penalties that we believe are morally proper to give, then they cannot hold back from reprimanding those citizens. Consequently, The Founding Fathers created the Eighth Amendment to be intended for further generations to interpret the meaning of “cruel” and “unusual” over time (Donnell). The amendment was then ratified in 1791 nevertheless, the Eighth Amendment and the death penalty is still highly debated today because the differences in interpretations
Herbert J. Storing, an Associate Professor of Political Science, in “The Case Against Civil Disobedience,” writes, “One of the practical consequences of this institution [civil disobedience] is to divert disobedience and even revolution into the channel of law” (97). What Storing is saying is that civil disobedience will encourage people to break the laws and they will hide under civil disobedience to avoid the law. Also, civil disobedience might split society by creating disagreements with the people, and it could create a political instability. However, Storing fails to see that those who break an unjust law, as discussed above, do not avoid the law, in fact they show respect to the law as they willingly accept the consequences. By accepting the consequences, they show that they are not acting for their own interests but for society’s.
Caesar was trying to differentiate between breaking the law for a good reason and a bad reason. In other words, if you seize power you do it for a variety of reasons, mostly in those days to expand an empire or revolt against an unjust regime. If those in power are 'good ' then you do not need to seize power, and the enforced rules are there to protect you. So, in short, only break the rules to change them.
Lopez won the U.S. V. Lopez case making it important because in terms of congressional power since it would go against the rights given in article 1 section 8 number 10 that says, “To define and punish…offences against the Law of Nations. Aside from that it would have an effect on interstate commerce, thing that congress regulates as mentioned in article 1 section 8 number 3. Since Lopez won, the laws for the state had to change causing the state to have its own rules and punishments from the ones for the whole U.S. The Lopez case is an implied power due to article 1 and has many cons. The case of Lopez is considered implied power because his case went against the power of congress. In article 1, congress has the power to define and punish
During the post-9/11 period, the government passed policies against foreigners, especially those who had connections with Arab, to secure the nation from terrorism. The abuse of power is more likely to be accepted when it comes with a “reasonable explanation.” On the other hand, when Nixon used the government power to cover the truth of Watergate, his action was no different than corruption, therefore not being recognized by the public. Moreover, the impact of the Watergate Scandal was deep and enduring- it stated the necessity of openness and honesty in
Part two, Covert Action, of Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq, by Stephen Kinzer, presents situations in Iran, Chile, South Vietnam, and Guatemala where covert actions were used to abolish governments that the United States claimed had communist influence and intentions. These threats were misguided, but the excuse was used to justify the actions to the public. The true intention of these interventions was to protect American businesses in foreign countries. These interferences are still causing problems for all countries involved.
In this case Zinn uses The Vietnam War, an act of unnecessary violence that the U.S has committed. Evil isn 't exactly specific to one group of people, anyone and everyone has the potential to be cruel. There is a choice to be made of whether we will succumb to corrupt behavior or not. We are always quick to condemn other 's acts of evil, but defend the behavior of our government, people, or
One example of our government compromising on the liberties in the bill of rights is freedom of speech. In concerns of the Bill of Rights, the term “freedom of speech” doesn’t really means the people are 100 % free to say whatever they want. If this was the case, most things would be very different. For instance, in the Washington Redskins trademark case, their name “Redskin” is offensive to Asian-Americans. Some of that race could take it in their consideration to sue this team for the provocative name.