She writes that, "a policymaking tool is needed to draw the line between speech that should be sanctioned and speech that must be tolerated in the name of freedom of expression, no matter how ugly it may be" (Benesch 250). This exemplifies two types of common fallacies. The first is the SLIPPERY SLOPE fallacy because it almost states that one change will lead to another, and it can be a negative or positive result. The second fallacy is CONFIRMATION BIAS because it confirms her own standpoint and belief, opposed to contrary evidence. She states that the government has even tried to place censorships on technology and the media which has not worked.
Common saying goes, “Everything comes with a price. You can never gain something if you don’t sacrifice something of equal value.” While this might not apply to all situations, it certainly describes the debate of National Security vs. Individual Privacy. To increase and establish safety and security for the citizens, erosion of individual privacy must occur; the real problem is how far the government should go to ensure that terrorist threats are minimized. To address this growing debate, President Obama said, “It’s important to understand that you can’t have 100 percent security and then have 100 percent privacy... we’re going to have to make some choices as a society”.
The Founding Fathers and the public felt that the constitution didn’t set up enough boundaries for the government, they felt that the government would assume too much power and take away the “Natural Rights” of the human. The Bill of Rights was set up to make sure the public felt safe and to make sure the government couldn’t abuse their power and turn it into a communist state or a dictatorship. America and our Founding Fathers based our Bill of Rights off the English Bill of Rights, so naturally there will be a lot of similarities between the two. Much like the Amendments in the English Bill of Rights, which states: “The crown shall not have no interference with the law” and “The Freedom of speech in Parliament, in that proceedings in Parliament were not to be questioned in the courts or in any body outside Parliament itself” Our First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
However, this idea overshadows how similar our countries really are. Censorship occurs everywhere, even in the “Land of the Free”. Things are swept under the rug and kept from people for the “greater good”, but should not the greater good be for people to know what is going on in the world they live in? People constantly post things just to have them removed; social media is a tremendous platform to inform and educate people on things that the news refuses to cover or hides. Concealing information and censoring the media defeats the purpose of the First Amendment and goes against the foundation of our country.
Upholding the freedom of speech, though, requires that responsibility and restraint be practiced by the government, the people, and the individual. Admittedly, keeping the delicate balance of freedom of speech and governmental regulation can prove to be tough work for the leaders of America, especially in light of the many advances made toward online communication. Everyday our government is faced with questions regarding how much speech can/should be censored, who decides what words are lawful and which are not, and at what point does protecting one person_Ñés freedom of speech begin to pose a threat to the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of other citizens. Personally, I endorse the
Not only did the trial of Captain Preston affect the relationship between the Americans and British, but also the Coercive Acts. After the Boston Tea Party, Britain passed these laws to punish Boston and reinforce British control. The laws affected the lives of the Americans and through the Boston Harbour Act, they were unable to utilize the harbour. Due to Britain taking away the people of Boston’s ability to export and import goods, Samuel Adams’ words were valued and Americans wanted Britain to be held accountable for “cutting off our trade with all parts of the world”. Adams was the founder of the Sons of Liberty, a group of merchants, politicians and lawyers, involved in the protest of the Stamp Act.
Yet it is most important for a Democratic government. A government that is democratic most allow its people to speak and express themselves about the issues that concern them and what they think the government is doing right and what the government is doing wrong. As stated in the article Importance of freedom of Expression “A government that does not know what the people feel and think is playing a risky game. The government that doesn 't allow free speech runs a risk of destroying the creative nature of its people.”
Such censorship would lead to a totalitarian rule by the majority . While hate speech should be better understood, bigoted acts should not be included in hate speech or harmful subjective phrases. hate speech has become a spotlight topic and there is a discussion if free speech should protect it. The main opposition against free speech being an
in the political sphere, first thing to do is constitute itself from what Derrida calls “constitutive outside”. Mouffe thinks that this the crucial point for her conceptualisation of democracy theory because only if there is a difference in public, there is a power which can be limited by institutions. So modern liberal democracy is under illusion that people can free themselves from forms of power but on the contrary under guise of neutrality liberal democratic institutions practice forms of exclusion and violent acts in order to reach consensus. In nowadays liberal democracy is seen as an only legitimate form of government. Especially after the collapse of U.S.S.R, political theorists who defend the politics is