Right to equality refers to equality in the eyes of law, discarding any unfairness on grounds of caste, race, religion, place of birth, and sex. Equality before law means that state cannot refuse to provide equality before the law and equal defence of the law to any person within the territories of India. So when we charge a person for blasphemy then we violate his right to equality because we don’t give him equality in law as these laws are subjective and inconsistent laws. When a person is charged for an offence of blasphemy then his right to equality gets violated because like the other people of the society the person accused of blasphemy is not allowed to express his views in the society. Right to equality is a right guaranteed under article 1 of Universal Declaration of Human Right which states that “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
The Catcher in the Rye no part of the book should be censored because everything in the book stand either as a symbol for the character Holden or serve as a lesson in the book But you’ve not told why...you can’t just state something without cause. State why... Intro: The definition of Censorship is “Censorship is the restraint of speech and communicative material by some form of power or authority, usually a government” (Censorship). A censorship is done to protect the public because they are considered offensive or otherwise objectionable (censorship). A censorship is not simply done by just a normal citizen but by a high authority usually done by the government.
The truth is the second amendment or the right to bear arms is still in place to protect us from being at the mercy of a dictator. In fact Piers Morgan stated “The second Merrell3 amendment isn’t there for duck hunting, it’s there to protect us from tyrannical government and street thugs, 1776 will commence again if you try to take away our firearms. (Gun control 2016)” Some Americans may also take freedom of religion for granted. Only having one religion would be simple, but what Americans do not realize is that countries that do only have one religion normally have a dictator. When speaking poorly about Muhammad Muslims face punishments resulting in death.
Additionally, the American colonists felt that the implemented taxes and laws were unjust. There were many unjust laws and taxes forced upon the colonies. In document two, the author states that Great Britain has the “legal authority to regulate the trade of Great Britain and all her colonies”. He believes that the raising revenue from the trade was never intended, and that the British Parliament never had the intention of implementing duties - duties before the Stamp Act - for the sake of raising revenue. However, the author felt that the Stamp Act and Townshend Act and the other acts from the Stamp Act onwards were unconstitutional.
In Robin Lakoff’s “Hate Speech”, Lakoff claims that not everyone is able to understand hate speech because not everyone goes through it, or they don't find it a big deal because it doesn't happen to them. Someone might claim that they know that hate speech doesn't happen that often but, what is hate speech? Hate speech is to “promote violence” and it is “created by people who are a majority of the population; directed toward people who are a part of a minority population.” (bsu.edu). The First Amendment allows people to speak what they want, and express themselves. Hate speech destroys the First Amendment because it doesn't allow a person to express their free speech.
By allowing people to express their hate in the form of speech, it would decrease the overall happiness of the majority. I think that in such cases the harm principle fails to clarify in the different kinds of speech that should be allowed. The freedom of speech is clearly important in a society to express themselves, but there are limits. The role of government should then be to protect our right to free speech and to control hate speech, which is harmful to
This was done to ensure a control over the Indian population, and prevent mass organization. Nehru, the leader of the Indian National Congress, recognized this. He wrote: “ 'Hindu and Muslim communalism ' is 'in neither case even bona fide communalism, but political and social reaction hiding behind the communal mask”. The British fanned flames between these different religious groups in order to ensure that they would not rise up against them. The main instruments of British rule in India were the army and the civil service.
Censorship by the government is unconstitutional. Censorship can have positive effects on society; however, it hinders freedom of speech, can insight dictatorship, and oppress individuals. The 1st Amendment protects public institutions from having to compromise the ideals of free speech by establishing framework that defines critical rights and responsibilities. American people resort to “more speech not enforced silence” in seeking to resolve our differences in values, sensibilities, and offenses. The effect has restricted newspapers, television, radio, etc.
Advancements are made through negotiations and other forms of protest rather than the destruction of property. The right to protest is one that is a basic human right ;however, the right to protest does not allow for the destruction of property. As Martin Luther King Jr. states in Letters from Birmingham City Jail, I have tried to make it clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends (King 197). Arguments because destruction of property brings awareness to the protest s cause are not defensible and merely trite excuses for illegal behavior. The need for destruction only brings forth flaws in the movements.
Bringing light to European countries, a very small proportion of populations are Muslim and therefore they are often considered as outsiders. Such acts of terrorism have sparked a chain reaction, leading to Muslims being portrayed in a negative way in the media. As a result, those residing in Europe who are Muslims experience severe racism in the form of less job opportunities and general discrimination. Many Muslims have been receiving unjustified and hostile treatment simply due to their religious beliefs, especially in European nations. Such treatment towards Muslim people is a violation of one’s basic human right and may perhaps be a threat to cohesion within societies.
Many businesses in Indiana are denying LGBT people service and their action are justify because of Indiana’s RFRA. Indiana 's RFRA should be unconstitutional because it violates the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause and religion should not override laws. Every individuals in the United States have equal protection under the law. However, Indiana 's RFRA allows businesses to discriminate against the LGBT community. It allows business owners whose religion does not tolerate homosexuals to not serve LGBT people.
It is similar to the constitution because it allows for what are considered basic rights like that government cannot intervene in a court case. Question 5. The bill of rights affects the power of the government in multiple ways. It bans the government from imposing any religion on everyone in America. It also restricts the government 's use of troops and makes it illegal to station troops in people 's houses without their permission.
Stricter gun laws would not benefit America because they would restrict the rights of citizens, restrict the reliability and freedom citizens deserve, and would do nothing to prevent killings from occurring. Recently, laws have been established within states that mistreat
All segregation statures are unjust because segregation degrades human traits and harms one’s inner core. So if segregation is morally wrong, it can’t be a just law and Dr. King looks at it as being acceptable to violate the segregation ordinances because it is an unjust law. Another example of an unjust law is when a larger group creates a law that the smaller group couldn’t have a voice in because obstacles prevented them from voting. At the time period different methods kept Negros from becoming registered voters. In other words it wouldn’t be fair to say the governing body that enacted the segregation laws were voted in by the majority, when a large portion didn’t a have voice in the matter.
The Supreme Court stated that the government 's limit on freedom of speech invades the right of the First Amendment. Therefore, possible additional publication of the Pentagon Papers did not grab attention considerably or influence the United States negatively at all. Consequently, the Pentagon Papers case was a trace of a pivotal example existing for advocating freedom of the press because it was included in freedom of speech. The New York Times published the report, but the government wanted to make it unknown to public because of possible harm to national security and war efforts in Vietnam. As a result, it attempted to stop the Times and the Post from publishing their articles.