I believe freedom of speech should not be limited. Nowhere in the constitution does it give the government the right to limit our freedoms ,that act is truly unconstitutional. If we let them limit our freedoms then that gives them the power to limit little by little until it 's eventually all gone. The people should not be suppressed they should be allowed to put forth their opinions and speak against anything they feel isn 't right. the constitution states that you can say whatever you want as long as it does not include anything profine, or violent.
Chapter 4 of the book We the People talks about Civil Liberties, this chapter mainly talks about the Rights that were placed in the Constitution (not in the Bill of Rights), it also talks about the Bill of Rights and it describes the rights protected by the Bill of Rights. It also talks about specific rights that work close together with the Bill of Rights and Amendments rights. One of the first Amendments that is described in great detail is Freedom of Speech and Religion. The first Amendment protects US citizens right to talk about almost any topic in the United States. I said almost any topic because there are some forms of speech that aren’t protected by the First Amendment (these forms of speech can be limited or prohibited), some of the forms of speech that aren’t protected by the First Amendment are Fighting Words and Hate Speech, Student Speech, Libel and Slander speech.
I am undecided for Freedom of Speech. There are plenty of good and bad qualities, and as much as there are pros there are also an equal amount of cons to freedom of speech. According to the first amendment, we the people have the freedom of speech which allows us the right to speak freely without censorship. Freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, such as on “hate speech”. There are many pros and cons to freedom of speech, which is why I am only discussing three pros and cons, that I find that argues the opposite side, to the point it made me undecided on free speech.
“It is not about what we do, but too what we do not do, for which we are accountable.” No action doesn’t amount to no crime but the statute arbitrates create offences of omission. In Bratty V Attorney-General , Lord Denning said that it must be a voluntary act to be punished. Voluntary act is when an individual has complete control and conscious exercise of will on his/her body. Saying if A failed to save B, but A did no positive act to cause B’s death, should A be liable? Omission cannot form the base of actus reus of an offence.
Also, this is a free country so people should be able to speak the language they want. People need to consider the consequences of this action before they make up their minds. English should not be made the official language of this country because it violates the First Amendment, discriminates non-English speakers, and affects family relations. First of
This is an important concept because it explains that officers should not follow society and pressure from the public and media but follow the laws that our country. This a good thing to have when dealing with persuasive criminals and individuals. Both officers and civilians benefit from this principle because it protects both parties. Officers also need to know the laws, so they can stay away form trouble and not be deceived by public persuasion. This is a good thing to have in America today, because many criminals will say anything to get out of punishment.
Under the First Amendment there is no exception to hate speech; although, hateful ideas are protected just as other ideas. 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
And I accept that certain arguments – like the direct incitement of violence – should indeed be unlawful. But the category ‘hate speech’ has come to function quite differently from prohibitions on incitement to violence. It has become a means of rebranding obnoxious political arguments as immoral and so beyond the boundaries of accepted reasonable debate. It makes certain sentiments illegitimate, thereby disenfranchising those who hold such views”. As long as the speech is not promoting violence, or is not one of the types of speeches that are not protected by the first amendment, then there’s no reason for it not to be heard and be debated with the
Fa was an integral part of the structure of a Legalist government. Its most valuable aspect in that society was that it did not depend on the moral perfection of rulers to work (Harris 156). Since rulers were equally human beings, they would be fallibleto selfish interest and moral corruption. Consequently, it would be impossible to achieve consistency in the government which would lead to disorder.Thus, this set of administrative standardsensured that, regardless of the powers that be, the established rules of social demeanor are enforced at all
Constitution protects the individual rights of its citizens. In this case, even if Ohio had its own laws it was shown that the supreme law has more weight in some cases than the state. Every individual citizen of the United States has the same rights, and they cannot be violated in any aspect. In the case of Mapp v Ohio the officers violated the privacy of Mapp and made a search to a private property without the proper documentation in this case the search warrant. Even if the officers did not cause any harm to any of the individuals living at the property, the evidence found should not be considered as valid to present it at a trial.
The sections that are applicable are section 2 ( b), section 7, section 8 and section 9. Section 2 ( b) relates to this cartoon because it can limit our expression. We will not be able to fully express what we think or feel on the internet because the government can see every little thing we do. Even if we do express what we feel it can be used against us and in our defense we cannot use anything. Section 7 is of main relevance to my cartoon because in this section it states that we have the right to life, liberty and security.
For a person who’s mad, it would give no control over how to express their anger because the decision making part of the cortex is damaged. The amygdala is responsible for emotions so anger would not manifest in a person who damaged their
The 14th Amendment right to equal protection as recognized under Baker v Carr designed on the surface to ensure fair participation in the democratic process, however, it is more so a check on the majority. As Baker v Carr introduces, the 14th Amendment does not cover all types of discrimination. For example, discrimination by the means of improper districting of a state, intentional or not, is not covered by the Constitution. However, what the 14th Amendment does do effectively is put a check on the majority will through rights. The majority rules and the only way to prevent this is through rights, which dictate what people are and are not allowed to do.
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