Our founding fathers stood up for this right, one that does not include censorship of any kind. To have a law that goes against this principle invalidates the law itself. Throughout Hillsboro, America, and the world, multitudes of different opinions exist, and they deserve to be protected. It all boils down to the importance of respecting and recognizing different viewpoints as they
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood “(UDHR). Surely everyone will follow these laws placed after World War II, Right? While there are laws in place to protect our basic human rights, some humans do not follow them. As previously mentioned, the Civil Rights movement or in current time the slaves and citizens in North Korea, both which happened after the laws were placed. Just because law is set in place doesn’t make people follow it.
Though, in the opening section of his book, he agrees that he ‘doesn’t present a precise theory of moral basis of individual rights’ but he still suggests various factors that such a theory might be inclusive of. Anarchy, state and Utopia starts with: “Individuals have rights, and there exist things that no person or group may do to them (without violating their rights)” These rights, to him, are natural because of who we are not because they were given to us by someone else but just mentioning that we have rights isn’t the same as saying why we have them. For this, he draws on Immanuel Kant’s famous formulation: “Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only” . Humans are beings possessed with the virtue of rationality and hold dignity which keeps one from being used by another, and hence we have rights against such use. The idea that forms the core of his argument is the conception of a human’s capacity to lead a life they want.
Hence there is no discrimination. However, the point that the Supreme Court seems to be missing is the freedom of personal liberty. (“Life, Liberty of Property without due process of Law”)While the object of the 14th amendment was to enforce absolute equality, it included personal liberty. If the amendment is enforced in its true meaning, it means to protect all civil rights that pertain to freedom and citizenship. Liberty consists of the power to move around and follow one’s own will under without any restraint unless prohibited by law.
Human Rights What are Human Rights? Human Rights are commonly understood as being those rights which are inherent to the human being. The concept of human rights acknowledges that every single human being is entitled to enjoy his or her human rights without distinction as to race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Human rights are legally guaranteed by human rights law, protecting individuals and groups against actions which interfere with fundamental freedom and human dignity. They are expressed in treaties, customary international law, bodies of principles and other sources of law.
Equality’s primary meaning in the Declaration of Independence was that no one was born to be subjected to anyone’s authority. In a closer look, behind this idea, lays the fact that people are possessors of rights, equal rights possessors. The implication of this was that they are equal under the law, thereby; people would have equal opportunity to pursuit a way of life that would please them as long as they had social responsibility about the way they do it. It was not self-evident that one was born to be a ruler and the other a follower, they had to support that on their own. Either way you look at, equality has a lot of powerful meanings in this document.
As Malaysian citizens, besides having the right to say and express whatever we want, we also have the right to assemble peaceably and we also have the right to form associations however it also being stated in Article 10 (2) (a) (b) (c) that the parliament has the right to impose restrictions on these rights. It is true that Malaysians get to enjoy the freedom of speech and expression as stated in the Federal Constitution but this freedom is restricted and these restrictions are the exception, permitted only to protect: the rights or reputations of others, national security, public order, public health and morals. This simply means that as Malaysian citizens, we do have the right to say and express whatever we want as long as it does not break the rules or regulations
• Civil liberty are citizen’s freedom to exercise customary rights such as freedom of speech without government interference. • In U.S. this right are guaranteed by the laws of the country commonly known as the Bill of Rights. • For instance the government in U.S cannot interfere in an individuals freedom of worship or freedom of speech. • Civil liberties are rooted in the Bills of Rights which limits the power of the government. • Civil liberty are established for the good of the community.
SLO: 1 Civil Liberties vs Civil Rights Civil Liberties are individual rights that are acknowledged by the Bill of Rights. Civil Liberties place restraints on what the government can and can’t do.These individual rights cannot be taken away by law. These rights can be found in the Bill of Rights. 2 Some of these rights include: the right to free speech, the right to remain silent when being questioned by authorities, the right to privacy, the right to fair trial, the right to be free from unwarranted searches, etc. 1 Civil Rights are rights that the government guarantees equal treatment under the constitution.
While this is more of a forced ruling to make everyone abide by the same rules, it will perform its duty all the same. Furthermore, it is contributing to the belief that people cannot function alone in society. It stands to show that there needs to be a determination from a higher source to outline their involvement in the societal structure. This means, but isn’t limited to, laws that all must follow. With Jefferson, his theory follows this in a parallel fashion, in the reason that his idea doesn’t cross with hobbes, but they share the same direction.