When a journalist wants to report an article, interview, survey, etc. they cannot report what people need and/or want to know, they can only report what the government wants the people to know (“Censorship Effects on Society”). They do not have the freedom to express what they really want to which deprives them of their rights. The United States and many other countries see the internet as a threat and a means of control which is why information of the World Wide Web is censored (Bennett). It is believed that the government censors as a way to have control not to protect citizens; by knowing more, they have the upper
I say all of this not to say that the government should turn a blind eye to the activities of the public, but should be more considerate of the personal lives of civilians in the process of practicing safety measures. One can‚Äôt be chosen over the other. Like Benjamin Franklin once said, ‚ÄúThey who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
Some people as myself don’t let the internet control our future, we know the right from wrong and know when to put an end to the nonsense of what a technocrat tries to give us. We can put an end by doing our research and decide if what we are reading or using is the real deal. There are many ways on how we can take control of our future, such as putting any technology away will give us the upper hand on coming close to any technocrat trying to take over our future. Although most of us will not just put our technology away, we should be mindful on what we see or read on the internet. Just by reading “I Wear the Black Hat” by Chuck Klosterman, it can help everyone understand what a technocrat is and how they are villains.
Yet, these books don’t show offensive and inappropriate content they convey something that has importance to life. Censored books are also, literature classics but, its just presented differently. These books are more in depth and more difficult to determine the author’s purpose of writing the books. Banning books violates our civil rights and takes away knowledge from kids on the problems we still face
Surveillance is the act of watching someone closely mainly to prevent crimes. While may be used to stop a terrorist attack beforehand, government surveillance has ethical issues as it is not always used in the right context. It is the antithesis of every nation’s constitution, which promotes freedom of privacy. Furthermore, it directly violates citizens’ rights and freedom of speech, and is used to retaliate against political enemies of the government using imprisonment or other sanctions. Government surveillance can have adverse effects on anyone’s life as it can be used to harm an individual’s reputation by exposing their personal information.
In this case, TPP is both morally and humanely wrong as it takes away people’s rights and freedom of expression, which is something that a human being should have in order to live righteously. Therefore, it is clear that TPP gives numerous downsides to the corresponding
The Exclusionary Rule is grounded in the Fourth Amendment and it is intended to protect citizens from police doing illegal searches and collecting evidence. (How the) This means all evidence that was collected is inadmissible. However, this information is important and could help to label a criminal guilty. Criminal convictions have been minimal under this rule and criminals are getting away with more. The Exclusionary Rule only hampers police investigations.
What he did was for a good cause, but it was still wrong. Geoffrey Stone affirmed, “There is a federal statute that makes it a crime for public employees who have been granted access to classified information to reveal that information to persons who are unauthorized to receive it” (Democracy Now). Edward Snowden did exactly that by handing over the classified documents to several journalists. As I mentioned earlier, he had good intentions, but breaking the law for whatever reason is still breaking the law. Stone also stated, “Whether one admires what he did is another question, but it doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not what he did was unlawful”
If they insight violence, or cause people to act out against society, I think a book should be banned. Even for injustices that happen in our country, violence should never be tolerated. Freedom of speech is a valuable thing, and authors should be able to write whatever they want, but not at the cost to be destructive. There are people that would read about that and become curious and try drugs. Sometimes people like to do what they’re not supposed to do because it’s more
Police work should remain private. The cameras on at all times would allow an invasion of privacy. Furthermore, the cost of body cameras and storing all the information could hurt police departments. Many enforcement agencies are not able to use the cameras due to the exorbitant cost.
Censorship The United States Government is finding new ways to censor citizen’s freedom. Are they taking it too far by removing online content and books that might be considered offensive to the general public. The government should not take away offensive reading content for three reasons. Firstly all citizens should not be limited to what books they are allowed to read considering we have been granted freedom from the government with the first Amendment. Secondly, books are people’s best teachers and provide real life knowledge for kids and adults who are trying to comprehend subjects that we not taught throughout the many years of education.
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
The ability to conduct peaceful resistance to something one does not believe in has been an important part of the United State’s society for a long time. Average citizens are given the opportunity to make a political statement and try to impact the laws of our society, while in other places people may be killed for trying to speak their mind. If someone is not harming others or encouraging chaos, peaceful resistance to laws can benefit a free society. Peaceful resistance allow people to speak out against something they don’t believe in and show those in power that their constituents do not agree with with something they did. Though there are other ways to try to impact the decision of those in power, such as writing letters or voting, getting a large group of people to protest, those in power might not listen.
Soon after the 9/11 terrorist attack, the United States felt the need to increase security and create something that would help the government prevent another attack. In came the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act is laws passed that kept up with new technology to be able to keep up with the more sophisticated criminals. Many of the ideas I agree with and see as routes to keep the government officials on the right track; however, there is one part I feel is an unnecessary part and should not have been included in the Act. I personally don't believe that the Patriot Act has done anything to help prevent terrorist attacks.
Free Speech The First Amendments is a blessing that the United States is fortunate enough to have. The First Amendment protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference (The First Amendment). The freedom of expression includes the right to free speech, press, assembly, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances (The First Amendment). Redress of grievances guarantees people the right to ask the government to provide relief for a wrong through courts or other governmental action (The First Amendment).