The Benefits Of The First Amendment

“freedom is slavery” is saying that people who follow their will is not free, because they are not protected from their own unsuccessfulness they get from bad decisions. It says that not following the party is slavery. By following the Party people are given the feeling that they are getting the success they need and that their life is better than it used to be. The Party had portrayed freedom as the crooked.The contradiction in” freedom is slavery” is that in order to know what freedom is people need to experience it. Freedom enables people to do and believe what they want.

John Dos Passos once said, “Individuality is freedom lived.” The root of individuality lies in freedom. Without freedom, there is an inability to think for oneself and share one’s ideas. In a society where this freedom is lacking, people will not think for themselves and submit to whatever rule is enforced over them. In Fahrenheit 451, the government attempts to control freedom as a means towards reaching a perfect society. The “perfect” society that is created, comes at the cost of individuality.

The argument for compulsory voting is basically undemocratic because the first amendment talks about how you have freedom. The freedom of choice must include the freedom not to choose. Democracy deeply values individual freedom which means if compulsory voting was mandatory, It is a clear violation of liberty and the first amendment. I argue that voting should not be mandatory in America because first, non-voters are uninformed, it doesn’t improve the democratic climate, and it requires a national database. American is one of the most powerful and big countries in the world.

However, freedom of speech does not include the right to incite actions that would harm others or the distribution of obscene material (Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 2000). There are many reasons why various organizations and people are censoring different kinds of topics; some people say it’s the right thing to do and others think its controversial to the first amendment.

This is the danger of those I refer to as the ‘Free Speech But…’ crowds. You will find them everywhere, each one asking for one simple exception to the rule, all beginning with their argument “I believe in free speech, but…”. But nothing my friend. While I’m sure you protectors think you’re the only one deserving of exemption, what makes you better than any of the rest? After all, is it not the exact same argument?

As illustrated, U.S. citizens should be granted the ability to protest wars and drafts since it violates the first Amendment’s right to free speech. The Supreme Court made an invalid choice. In another sense, the fact that Charles Schenck was not initiating any violence during his protest indicates why citizens should be required to protest

Therefore, the government does not have the power to enforce a religion upon every citizen of the U.S. The freedom of religion is a right given to everyone in the U.S. who is actively practicing some sort of religion or no religion at all. The government cannot force someone to practice one religion against their

Liberty - the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one 's way of life, behavior, or political views. Even with a definition what is liberty exactly? And that where the trouble begins because there are dozens of definitions. The problem is we mix the “actual” definition with our own perception but none of them mean the same thing. Since we don’t think the same way and we conceptualized life differently, the definition of liberty is based upon opinion such as beauty standards.

On the other hand, Hard Determinism believes that there are no free actions at all, and Compatibilism believes that there is free action when someone does what he wants to do. Libertarianism believes in free actions because we have the ability to control some of these actions.

Sources should properly be cited, every data and numbers presented should be based on scientific study. In social responsibility theory, there is freedom but is never absolute. The press is still under public and government criticism. They are bound to a set of ethics that, if they fail to follow, can be held against them by their audience or any media regulatory and governing body. While both libertarianism and social responsibility theory take pride of their freedom from any government support and funding and that they are privately owned, they somehow differ on how privatization affects their audience response.