When asked Saumya said “It’s abuse of free speech, since you’re just bashing someone else.” Using your freedom of speech to hit on theirs is a abuse of free speech. In reality, though what is actually being accomplished, besides trying to deteriorate others soul and being in such a provisional way. Hurting others because you think how they are is not right is a ridiculous way of thinking in this day and age. Using hate has not resolved any issues and sure is not making anyone believe that they are any more wrong in their
She states that the government has even tried to place censorships on technology and the media which has not worked. It actually causes more outbreaks and violence. Another example of fallacy she uses is FALLACY OF EXCLUSION. This is because she is referring to one group 's behavior and assuming that behavior is specific to that one group when it is yet common to many groups. She writes, "Diverse communities will never agree on which speech is inherently offensive" (Benesch 250) Though she says diverse groups, it can quite well mean she is trying to make her own opinion for a group of
In Robin Lakoff’s “Hate Speech”, Lakoff claims that not everyone is able to understand hate speech because not everyone goes through it, or they don't find it a big deal because it doesn't happen to them. Someone might claim that they know that hate speech doesn't happen that often but, what is hate speech? Hate speech is to “promote violence” and it is “created by people who are a majority of the population; directed toward people who are a part of a minority population.” (bsu.edu). The First Amendment allows people to speak what they want, and express themselves. Hate speech destroys the First Amendment because it doesn't allow a person to express their free speech.
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?
Don, I think your argument is completely the opposite of what I think in that I think that Safeblend went above and beyond to make the delivery process smooth and had performed well on the field. I do not consider Safeblend's act to be unethical since they have to maximize their profits. Business
However, we already said that it would be unjust for them to refuse to return to the cave. This seems like a case where an unjust act will put the individual preforming the act in a beater off position. However, this again depends on what is meant by better off. Earlier I described the difference between being better off in a secular way and being better off in a personal way. In a secular sense the philosopher would be better off staying out of the cave.
If you also look at the arguments against the options of restricting immigration, it talks about how refusing to let asylum seekers in “will fuel anti-American sentiment throughout the world”. But that doesn’t mean we should have open borders because that not only will make already residing Americans feel not secure, but it is an open door to anyone.
Hate speech law does not prevent of exercising the freedom of speech but it has been found for reduce using freedom of speech and minimize making problems to other or causing harm to them. As a coin has two sides, Hate speech law has also positive impact and bad impact like adversely affect on social attitudes, violate the freedom of speech and psychological harm. We should not try to stop hate speech law but we have to continue trying to minimize causing harm to other ====h I accept all Criticism from any one, however not all of people who characterized by good behavior and politely Speak. I cant accept Speak in a rude, offensive and aggressive way their says even if it was true and right.
However, there are limits to what we are allowed to say. We can’t misuse the freedom of speech, saying words that can cause serious harm (bullying). This form of speech will cause depression, suicide, and stunted social development. When freedom of speech hurts others, then it is not just an opinion anymore; it is a form of hate
2. Disadvantages of regulations/censorship 2.1 compromising the freedom of speech Censorship compromises the freedom of speech in many different ways. Freedom of speech refers to the right to speak without censorship or being restraint by a higher authority of the organization or country. For example, Compromising the freedom of speech will not allow the society to voice out their negative thoughts or to protest at a government or a government-related event. This example clearly shows that freedom of speech is being compromised as people are unable to voice out what they truly feel and are mostly forced to keep their opinions to themselves as voicing these opinions will make the rest of the society think in a different way and steer them away to generate other ideas or thoughts.