What the writer means is that hate speech codes are categorized in many ways. Each of these categories restrict our freedom of speech, which is not what our founding fathers wanted for us. Hate speech codes are also allowed in some cases and are not allowed in others. Again the article Hate Speech codes states a valid point when it stated, “Court rulings have prohibited public (state-run) colleges and universities from enacting codes that restrict the constitutional right to free speech based on content.
The Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States clearly states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” Obama’s effort to enforce this amendment may leave America in a frantic position. Stricter gun laws would not benefit America because they would restrict the rights of citizens, restrict the reliability and freedom citizens deserve, and would do nothing to prevent killings from occurring. Recently, laws have been established within states that mistreat
It discriminate against LGBT by letting religious business owner to deny LGBT people service and excluding them from the rest of the society. The LGBT community deserve equal treatment like the rest of the community by the law from both federal and state, they should not be discriminated because of other people’s religion or
However, the right to free speech is not absolute. The United State Supreme Court has ruled that the government can ban some speeches that contain “fighting words,” and words that
But it also shows that they were not the only ones to be mistreated and racially attacked and detained after the attack on Pearl Harbor. It was unfair for them to have their rights ripped from them, no trial or no evidence. It was because of their ethnicity that they were gravely mistreated by the system that was supposed to protect them. It didn’t matter if you were a natural born citizen, or if you were of different ethnics of any foreign nature you were or could be consider to be an enemy of the United States. Even though the government justified their actions by protecting the people against further attacks, all they did was abuse the constitution, its power and ruin people’s
It violates both 1st and 14th amendment. The 1st amendment forbids the government from taking “favor” respecting one religion over another, and the 14th amendment directs citizenship rights and equal protection of the law. However, Ted Cruz believes that Muslims should not be given rights of freedom, and free speech, but should be scrutinized when they are the potentially dangerous. Therefore shall be disciplined with” arbitrary interference” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 12) within their personal life. Innocent Muslims are singled out for not being guilty of terrorism.
It is not rational to allow governments to ban certain expressions because they are not appealing to some people. If such an act is allowed, than freedom of speech and press guaranteed by the 1st Amendment becomes useless, and that every material could be banned based on this test. People cannot be punished for expressing their views just because those views might not be appealing to some judge or jury (O`Brien, 508).
Carson has stated that “free speech is wonderful, hate speech can do real harm.” Trump has said that we must not tolerate the hate crimes such as the murder of Matthew Shepard for his sexual orientation. Carson and Trump differ slightly when is comes to same-sex marriage, however. Carson believes in gay rights but not gay marriage. He believes that homosexuality is a choice and that marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman.
After all, the constitution says “all men have the right to bear arms” and the fact that the government is exercising that right by putting up weird laws that don’t even work is very wrong. You can say it denies us of the rights we automatically have as human beings. And the current government system isn’t giving us the support we need in this crisis, then how much can we trust them? If the average citizen can analyze the government’s laws and see that it will not work, what does that say about our own government’s competency? Or maybe it’s not that the government is incompetent, it’s just that they are extremely corrupt and care for the anyones well being but their own.
They also search them even if they have no evidence that they have committed a crime. Racial profiling is obviously illegal violating the U.S. Constitution’s main point of equal protection under the law to all and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. Racial profiling doesn 't really help anyone usually alienating communities because of their ethnicities. Which causes the people not to trust the police. My first
However openly allowing torture in any way will normalize its use. While Dershowitz’s proposal for warranted torture may seem appropriate in the case of the ticking bomb terrorist, the proposal is undermined by many moral and legal issues. It is easier for government officials to justify using torture in such extreme cases, but the reasons for not using torture outweigh its justifications. Dershowitz’s suggestion assumes that under a system of torture warrants that officials will refrain from torture if the warrant is rejected. There is no way to regulate interrogators and it is unlikely that a warrant will prevent interrogators from breaking the rules.
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.
Gun limitation is an unpopular opinion, and the elimination of guns altogether can be protested with evidence from the Constitution. The Second Amendment gives the citizens the right to bear arms, and there is a section of the document that states that the “pursuit of happiness” is a right that the government is not allowed to remove. Granted, the pursuit of happiness argument is unstable, because the ending of lives due to guns is another violation of the constitution, but the argument is valid for those who use guns responsibly, and do no harm to others with them. Even though eliminating guns is an unpopular opinion, the evidence still point to the fact that mass shooting numbers have increased substantially in the most recent decade. There are however, some people who have a viewpoint on the other end of the spectrum-meaning that they want no restrictions on guns at all.
Like everyone else in this room I was aghast at the news of a terror attack in the heart of Paris. While initially my thoughts were with the victims, they soon turned to the possibility of a similar attack occurring here in Australia. While I had always thought of Australia as one of the safest, stable and prosperous nations on Earth, the reactionary rhetoric I saw on television, YouTube and print media made me question my convictions. I began to see threats where I never did before. For the first time I was genuinely displeased with the Australian parliament for their inability, and their disregard to address a threat.