Singaporeans should not be allowed to speak as they wish on race and religion in public. Many people think that freedom of speech is the right to express anything they want, which includes the freedom to hate, without censorship or restrictions from the government. However, such libertarian theory is thought to be impractical in Singapore because of racial, religious and cultural differences. The government believed that certain provocative speech should be curtailed to safeguard social stability. Hence, freedom of speech is not an absolute right in Singapore.
This is because the protestors are simply over-conforming to once again remind the government how the existing method for selecting the chief executive goes against Hong Kong’s human rights treaty, binding agreements that require the government to establish mechanisms that allow for equal, meaningful participation in public life. Their goal is to
For this reason, filters on social media platforms play little to no role, and have no effect/restrain in what is being said from one person to another. A second point the opposition may consider is that filters take away people's “freedom of speech”. This also can be misinterpreted in many ways because hate crime, according to law, is illegal in the United States, and is even punishable by jail sentences. The difference between freedom of speech and filters that disallow you to send certain messages, is that it conserves thousands of innocent young teen’s lives per
On the other hand, the same civil liberties that allow citizens to freely express their concerns against the government, are the same rights that allow them to express themselves through hateful messages against some sections of the population. These odious messages do not always add any social value to the free market of ideas. Nevertheless, citizens of a democratic society possess the freedom to express any messages, regardless of its value. The only exceptions are if speech becomes threatening, harassing or incites people to violence against an individual or group of individuals. This paper will do a comparative analysis between three arguments for banning hate speech, and three arguments for protecting hate
This effectively shuts down freedom of association and assembly. As you can see, reducing privacy comes with many disadvantages. However, this should not precede over the security of the whole nation. John Stuart Mill stated in his book On Liberty that people should be free to do whatever they wanted, provided they do no harm to others. I believe that this
Banned Books are books that are prohibited by law or to which free access is not permitted by other means. Banning books is against the writers right for freedom of speech, which is the first amendment. Students have the right to read, reading is not illegal, so why ban books? If a reader is mature enough to handle some curse words or bad behavior then they should be able to read banned books. Some people believe books should not be banned in schools/libraries but just because you do not like it does not mean it should be taken away, that is the authors freedom of speech.
One thing is sure, the kind of governance Rousseau described is not reality now. Looking at us he might say we are not free at all, that we have lost the community spirit that makes people want to be together. I would personally doubt about which has more freedom, our life or Rousseau´s book. I think the phrase “man is born free but everywhere he is in chains” fits perfectly to us. Maybe we do not enter in the community to be a whole but community affect us in everyday life, and not only.
But throughout the years, the logic behind these rules are becoming something that is not much logic at all, but more so an excuse to lock us away and keep our freedom at the utter most minimum caliber as possible. This is the truth behind the rules and this is what will free us of incompetence to live in our world knowing there is freedom, knowing we will not and cannot be locked away in a world in which there is nothing but rules.
Negotiating allows for civilized discussion and compromise. It can lead to many good things for both parties and sides of an issue. In another of his letters from jail Martin Luther King states, “I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth.” Growth comes when you put pressure and tension on our government leaders, and the hope is that that will end in negotiation and compromise. This is still used today, for example the LGBT community having been fighting for their rights and against discrimination for many years now. They use peaceful protests often to put tension on the government officials to promote growth and
I never engage in these types of conversations to argue. I just want to let people understand that there really is a problem with officers that abuse their power on a regular basis and never receive any sort of disciplinary action when incidents are reported even if that doesn’t happen here. Strangers aren’t the only people that You need to keep an eye on