Celebrities have already lost their privacy and also human should be equal in front of the law and god, so celebrities should not face stricter penalties. Celebrities certainly have more influence on people because they are public figures. Celebrities lived in the public, so when they committed crimes their punishment will also show on the television news and newspaper everywhere. People can easily saw the consequences and warn themselves not to do the same thing. Why would people do things that they already know there will be harsh punishments?
Where this argument ends; however, is on the question of people should help in a crisis? Whereas, some are convinced that we shouldn’t have the law because it society responsibility to help others. Others maintain that we should have the law because it will bring kindness to our world. We should care about our society enforcing laws regarding good Samaritans because our society is more violent as of late and has caused the loss of human life. Imagine if our society has this type of law and how different our society would be from what we see today.
Mala in se is considered to be “inherently evil” meaning such as robbery, murder, rape, etc that people in society have decided that should be banned due to its evil inhuman nature. While mala prohibita crimes have nothing evil about them but are banned becuase our laws have said so such as prostitution, gambling, drug use etc. These two definitions become a problem
Muslims are also to blame for bringing terrorism to America and have gained so much power that they put fear in the citizens of victimized countries (Moore 1). The measure that criminals go to commit hate crimes is just devastating and harsh. These kinds of violence cause harm and strike fear in people not only in London but also places hearing of these horrific events. Nobody wants to be harassed or attacked for something that certain individuals in their culture did, and be stereotyped as that one
By allowing people to express their hate in the form of speech, it would decrease the overall happiness of the majority. I think that in such cases the harm principle fails to clarify in the different kinds of speech that should be allowed. The freedom of speech is clearly important in a society to express themselves, but there are limits. The role of government should then be to protect our right to free speech and to control hate speech, which is harmful to
Either way, as proven by history, government censorship is necessary; however, the limitation to its censoring power must be clear and a system to prevent the possible abuse of this power is crucial. Overall, censorship should exist only for speeches that contained clear and dangerous intent and information published by media that contained a true threat to national security. The word censorship is usually comprised of a negative connotation and many are opposed to this idea. In fact, many Americans believe the First Amendment will protect almost all censorship. For example, according to Harris Poll, 84% of American believe the
The Death Penalty or the Capital Punishment should be considered illegal due to all of the things that are wrong with it. First of all the 8th amendment even says that there should be no cruel or unusual punishments for breaking the law, which the death penalty violates. Second the methods that they kill people sometimes don’t work and make the recipient die in pain and agony. Third of all 19 states already don’t allow it and some people are innocent that end up getting executed. So this shows why the death penalty should be abolished because the 8th amendment, the cruel methods used, and if we fixed this it would result in a safer and better society.
Censorship by the government is unconstitutional. Censorship can have positive effects on society; however, it hinders freedom of speech, can insight dictatorship, and oppress individuals. The 1st Amendment protects public institutions from having to compromise the ideals of free speech by establishing framework that defines critical rights and responsibilities. American people resort to “more speech not enforced silence” in seeking to resolve our differences in values, sensibilities, and offenses. The effect has restricted newspapers, television, radio, etc.
When the extremists try to harm the public or try to have advantages over other people who are not under them, it is known as extremism. In other words, extremism is individuals who have incredibly strong views on something that can threaten the safety or security of the world. The extremists have no mercy for those people because they believe that those who do not follow them are their enemies, and also God’s enemies. After I read some articles about religious and cultural extremism, I have been convinced by these three articles: anti-abortion extremism, Ku Klux Klan, and 9/11 (Al-Qaeda). Therefore, I believe that religious and cultural extremism is a global security threat.
When we start acknowledging the fact that we are individuals and that people don 't come in groups we will start to understand not to judge others as groups and not to judge all around. Losing labels that we put on others is also a problem with stereotyping in our society that we can easily fix and stop. The media is one of the hugest influences on stereotyping now in our society so if the media showed more positive and a more true impressions of the different demographics like religions,race, and sex people wouldn 't have a certain perception of others. One of the biggest things that might take a bit longer
All freedoms should have a restriction somewhere, and this limitation should happen when one breaks a law for the purpose of a religion. Americans should have their freedoms, but safety is even more important. Harming others for the purpose of a religion is a threat to society, and can bring down the nation. It is not fair for the purpose of people to break the law just because of a religious belief, while other people get punished for breaking the law. The first amendment is a controversial topic that still gets debated today.
Even though gun laws prevent deaths, they infringe so many rights in the immutable Bill of Rights, which is one of the foundations of the great United States. Gun laws give too much power to the government and way less from the people, which will lead to government corruption. And, stated by ClearPictureOnline.com,”Guns don 't kill people, people do. We need to concentrate on the values and morals of our citizens and at the role the media plays in glorifying violence and the lack of respect for law.” (Shootout: Do We Need More Gun Control Regulations?) What people don 't understand is that they are taking away their own freedoms with Gun Control.
The government expects us to follow the rules and go by them. Wanting change may lead to unsatisfactory upon some citizens. Change also affects the lives of many and that they may disagree with one’s argument on a certain law. As Martin Luther King Jr. stated in his letter, “ with willingness to accept penalty,” he says how he wouldn’t charge with an act of violence but to deal with the penalty in order to call attention from the people (Martin Luther King Jr. 37-38). He wants the people to notice and realize injustice the law is.
(2 points) The constitution is still important today because without it, what would become of our government? It’s relevant because people still believe we have to obey by it. People believe in their rights as an American and without the Constitution, American’s rights would not be protected and the government wouldn’t be able to function. Although there is quite the debate on the constitution. Some believe that it is outdated and that we shouldn’t have to follow it and others believe that it is apart of our history and how the Founding Father’s wanted the United States to be.
But there is also the problem that if the NSA become completely transparent, the terrorist and other people the NSA is trying to catch, will have more knowledge as how to not get caught, which would just make the NSA ineffective. Basically the people have to decide whether they want a government that catches terrorists or one that always protects their freedoms. Most parts of the world would rather have a government that catches terrorists and keeps them safe, but unlike these countries, America (excuse my American exceptionalism) has an amendment for their constitution that bans unreasonable search and seizures. The NSA is in a difficult position because it must weigh how transparent they can be to appease the population with how much secrecy they need to function