Oliver Wendell Holmes once wrote, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsly shouting in a theatre and causing panic.” Similarly, the Supreme Court’s ruling to arrest Schenck was wrong, and a U.S. citizen should be allowed to protest a war or draft in times of war. Specifically, the Espionage Act violated the first Amendment, Charles Schenck, whom was arrested after violating the Act, was indicting no violence, and the Act violated the 13th Amendment. First, citizens in the U.S. being allowed to protest wars or drafts specifically shines through since the Espionage Act violates the 13th Amendment.
Even though he was unaware of his actions being considered as stealing, what he did was still morally wrong. On the other side, the supporters of Aaron used the utilitarian theory. They did not care much as to what they were violating or what can be or will be violated, because they believe that their purpose and output is justifiable. In my opinion, I believe that the best ethical theory to be applied in this kind of situation is the social contract theory, simply because it stops conflict. A case like this, the freedom of information, can be made possible and acceptable if
This adds more and more to my reasoning of just banning guns from unworthy people completely. Since the second amendment is not applied daily to all citizens, this indicates it is fully flawed and shouldn’t have to take people dying in order to change our unfair system. Most of the time -if not always- your skin tone defines how situations are handled for you. In certain cases of mercy, colored people don’t get into as much trouble but aside from that, people with a lighter color of skin are found hardly ever guilty of crimes they wrongfully
The threats made during The Reign of Terror were not remotely extreme enough to resolve in death and therefore was not justified. In a government that says it values liberty, passing a law like the levee en mass is not justified because it requires people to do things they don’t want to do. Restricting religious practice is wrong in a government that says it values freedom and liberty (Document C). Terror also wasn’t justified because the French
King infers that some laws may look justified at a glance, but are really unjust when they’re put in context. He gives the example of his arresting for parading without a permit. King implied the issue isn’t how he broke the law of not having a permit to parade, the unjust happens when the law was used to maintain segregation and deny those citizens of their right of peaceful protest. The unjust happens when citizens are stripped of their natural- born, and constitutionally- written rights (King 928). King asserts that in no way is he advocating for defying laws, but he is for breaking unjust laws.
There is little evidence for the fact that Beatty hid the truth about censorship in hiding books, but with what evidence is relevant, Beatty will be proven guilty for his obstruct actions. Furthermore, the captain kept society from thinking with the help of the government, which didn’t provide the time for thought because it caused many distractions for the people. TV shows were brief and cars were being driven out of control, while no consequences were being thought of. The government didn’t know how they were being played by the powerful Beatty. He not only had men at his fingertips to burn down houses to diffuse fear from books, but he had control over the government as well.
The constitution gives United States citizens the right to bear arms and should not be infringed upon. If guns are banned then the black market and crime rate will be way worse, drugs are illegal and people can get them as they please, if firearms are banned people will do the same. Mental health is an even bigger issue than the guns themselves, if someone commits a mass murder there is something wrong with that individual and they are not mentally stable. People pull the trigger, the weapons do not fire
People take advantage of Amendment One by verbally hurting someone purposely or they will state false facts. The Constitution does not protect these acts at of abuse. For example Amendment Two states that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Although United States citizens have the right to bear arms, some people choose to use this law to commit crimes such as murder or robbing banks. To use one law to violate another does not make logical sense whatsoever, and committing a crime based on the Constitution is not protected in the Constitution.
I think utilitarianism basically means that doing what is right should be placed above all else. In Barnard Madoff case he stood against everything utilitarianism stood for. An example would running an illegal ponzi scheme he was not thinking about how the people he was taking money from were feeling he wanted it all for himself no matter how many people he had to step on to get it. According to Heather Salazar article Bernie Madoff: Greatest Ponzi Scheme in U.S. History she said Madoff was not interested in doing the right thing at all and because of this he let a lot of people down and caused a lot of unhappiness because of it (Salazar). If Bernard Madoff were to do the right thing he would not be in jail right now and if he couldn 't make the same amount of money was making illegally he would still be making a decent amount of it and it would have been clean instead of taken unwillingly from
The FBI seems to be making strides in preventing terrorist attacks, but this action should be made without social profiling and trolling the internet. Also, the repeal of Net Neutrality is another right being stripped from Americans. We deserve the right to an accessible internet that does not economically discriminate. All in all, the government does not have the right to monitor or limit internet content, as it skews our checks and balances system. Without these checks and balances we evolve into a country that oppresses its citizens.
Both 1984 and Anthem have very oppressive governments, but their laws are completely different from one another. In 1984, the government is strange when it comes to rules, there is nothing that is illegal, the people are allowed to do whatever they want, but if they do anything or even look slightly suspicious, the “Thought Police” will kidnap, torture, and kill anybody who has gone against the government. The government believes that if people are allowed to have emotions, they will become angry at the government, and revolt, and that’s why emotions are illegal (I will call it illegal because even though there are no laws, doing certain things will get you in trouble, so to avoid confusion, I’m going to continue saying it’s “illegal”), including emotional attachments to other people. People having sex for the purposes of procreation is perfectly legal, but having sex because you love the