Borders of the First Amendment are at the center of the legal debates about free speech and hate speech. While free speech is considered to be a basic right, as the Supreme Court has given the right to free speech. However, when such "free speech" crosses the line and becomes a threat, the courts have stepped in and punished the speaker. First Amendment does not protect free speech that has the intention of doing harm or damage. Many people believe that the First Amendment gives the people right to say whatever they want but it’s not true.
The constitution clearly states that we have the freedom of speech. If the government did censor speech, so many problems would arise. Some problems may be, how limiting our speech is unconstitutional, wars could occur. The First Amendment doesn’t take sides. Censoring speech in America is a horrible idea.
The Dangers of Book Banning The practice of challenging or banning books has long been a strategy used to label reading materials as offensive on moral, religious, or political, grounds. Books are being banned for containing offensive materials. It is argued that people can become influenced by detrimental ideas. The First Amendment expresses that citizens have the right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The pros of being against book banning is the First Amendment, parental control, and true facts and occurrences.
Flag protection, or making it a federal crime to deface the American flag, is the very definition of hypocrisy. It is by no means acceptable to deface the flag – in the same way it would be unacceptable to call other people names or insult religions – but freedom of speech must extend to the freedom to offend others, lest it no longer be freedom of speech, but only freedom to speak what the government wants to be spoken. This may start with a protection of the flag, but it will eventually result in a society of censorship. If the government is able to censor what is thought, spoken, or believed, then we are no better than countries who censor everything, and the experiment of America – that a society can be formed based on equal freedom for all – has failed.
What does it mean to be politically correct? Political correctness, often shortened to PC, is defined as agreeing with the idea that people should be careful not to use language or behave in a way that could offend a particular group of people. However, through generations of usage by the American government and the nation as a whole, it is obvious that this type of censorship is only a curtain for people to hide behind their real thoughts on “offensive” matters, such as sexuality and race. Many people argue that political correctness is a destructive force, one built on the foundational belief that by avoiding certain topics, the offensiveness of them will disappear entirely. It is because we as a nation are fearful of what we say, write, think, and especially of using the wrong words that may be denounced as insensitive, racist, sexist, or homophobic, that we give political correctness an unintentional, threatening power.
This quote is proving how Eliezer goes through dehumanizing actions while he was in Auschwitz. Eliezer does not have the choice whether he wants to remove his clothes or not. The Germans make a decision and that is what is expected to be done. If these tasks are not completed, the innocent Jewish people receive a punishment. These punishments dehumanize the Jewish people even more than what has already happened to them.
Moreover, these philosophers also subscribe to the notion that religion should not influence various areas of religion, such as government, unless it can do so in a way that is reasonable. Numerous people and institutions during the course of the respective lives of each of these thinkers would have argued differently: that religion could supersede reason in some instances and govern over aspects of life that have traditionally, and most prudently, been under the subjugation of reason. These two philosophers, however, would argue the converse and never put religion above reason.
Also, if you are from the Middle East, but you are not a Muslim, that do not matter, for them you are a Muslim. These kinds of things make them disrespectful and uneducated people. Another reason is that if they understand more about other cultures, they could stop making enemies everywhere. They need to understand that not all people that practice a specific religion have the same beliefs, not all are extremists, and the nationality of a person does not define her or his religion, or beliefs.
To argue this idea, Baker dismisses the concept of speech as an illocutionary act. Instead, he claims that the purpose of speech, even if intended to injure, is solely “instrumental,” providing that the injury is a consequence of speech rather than an integral component of its utterance (Waldron 2012, 166). Incidentally, Baker approves of certain speech limitations, distinguishing these from other speech acts as bearing grave and imminent material consequences. Within these limitations he includes the harm to an individuals autonomy, as well as pre-existing exceptions like obscenity and sedition (Waldron 2012, 145). Contrary to these aspects, Baker views hate speech as a facilitator to potential material consequences, who's utterance alone does not present immediate effects.
He rebels against God’s notion of grace and protection of the Jewish people, for neither of these ideals are apparent in the live he seems to have been cursed to live. Although it is not outwardly stated, it can be assumed that Elie was not the only Jew to eat during this particular Yom Kippur; whether their actions were due to practicality or anger will remain unknown. Other Jews hold on to their last pieces of hope. Even when surrounded by death, they praise God’s name and fast in His honor. But even the most religious of Jews are not immune to the world around them.
It violates both 1st and 14th amendment. The 1st amendment forbids the government from taking “favor” respecting one religion over another, and the 14th amendment directs citizenship rights and equal protection of the law. However, Ted Cruz believes that Muslims should not be given rights of freedom, and free speech, but should be scrutinized when they are the potentially dangerous. Therefore shall be disciplined with” arbitrary interference” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 12) within their personal life. Innocent Muslims are singled out for not being guilty of terrorism.
I said almost any topic because there are some forms of speech that aren’t protected by the First Amendment (these forms of speech can be limited or prohibited), some of the forms of speech that aren’t protected by the First Amendment are Fighting Words and Hate Speech, Student Speech, Libel and Slander speech. These forms of speech aren’t protected by the First Amendment because they can help to incite people
I believe freedom of speech should not be limited. Nowhere in the constitution does it give the government the right to limit our freedoms ,that act is truly unconstitutional. If we let them limit our freedoms then that gives them the power to limit little by little until it 's eventually all gone. The people should not be suppressed they should be allowed to put forth their opinions and speak against anything they feel isn 't right. the constitution states that you can say whatever you want as long as it does not include anything profine, or violent.
After hearing what he did to those Jewish people in the building would have mind- blowing and extremely appealing to me. I would have either said “no” or just walked away. This is a big thing that happened after the Holocaust, the Jews were left with this horrible experience and lifetime of sorrow while some Nazi’s felt extreme bad for what they did. Some Nazi’s wanted to forgive the Jewish people for the heinous acts they committed, but the majority of the Jewish population would never forgive the Nazi’s. This is such a burdensome thing to come across and try to deal with because of the magnitude of the situation.
The quote then said “The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought.” I don’t think we can have a right to think and not have speech. An example is like us speaking, and not being able to be heard. I can and can’t see eye to eye with this quote because i don’t believe the government should make community decisions without a say from the community. They made rights for a reason, so us as a community can speak as a group, together. This ties back to my Thesis because the quote states that we have a freedom