Although this development has had both positive and negative impacts on society there are more positive than negative. One way being that it censors out stuff the is inappropriate for children, or young people to be looking at. There are some websites and some content that is not appropriate for people of a young age to be searching for or looking at, and censorship makes sure of this. Censorship in this form is a good thing, it protects certain people from looking at stuff they should not be looking at. Also, it prevents specific information from getting out to particular people that should not be getting it.
I disagree because if someone or some group has a problem with government’s actions against their own or some other country, they shouldn’t start burning flags or other things. Burning a national flag is disrespectful since it is not going to change anything and it will send a wrong signal to others that doing this is a right way to show your opposition to any policy. There are lot of things which we don’t agree with but that should not result in a violence or burning flags and other things. Protect can be done in a peaceful manner and there are other avenues to make your voice and opinion
The suppression of hate propaganda signifies an infringement of individual’s freedom of expression. An activity that conveys a message through non-violent forms of expression is protected under the s.2 of the Charter regardless of how offensive it is. Moreover, there was a misapplication of Charter, which made s.319 (2) of the Criminal Code to fail the proportionality test. There was no relation between the criminalization of hate speech and its suppression. Although his comments were offensive, they did not pose any threats they way violence or violence threats would have.
There aren’t any justifications for discriminating against others based on their appearance. Johnny and his teammates created offensive stereotypical caricatures of African Americans followed by hateful comments which can’t be ignored. Mike, Adam, and Liam claim to have been joking, however, this isn’t a joking matter. They feel that their first amendment, which is the right to freedom of speech, protects them from any consequences. However, we don’t feel they should be exempt from punishment due to their freedom of speech; their posts were gravely inappropriate and offensive.
59) As Michel Foucault says, “Freedom of conscience entails more dangers than authority and despotism.” Besides enforcing censorship through incineration, the government also enacted ways of preventing an ability to desire further knowledge. After all, a naïveté enough group of people don’t warrant much physical power when being used for their ignorance.
The Court held the CPPA prohibitions to be too broad and in violation of the constitutional freedoms. The judgment from district court was reversed. Explanation: The Justices found the ban on certain images to be to broad and therefore sided in favor of the Free Coalition. A. Rule: The Child Pornography Protection Act 1996 (CPPA) due to the advancement in technology prohibits and penalizes not only child porn but anything in its likeliness such as computerized images or young adults portraying minors.
There are currently no constitutional limits on hate speech, even though many community areas such as college campuses have passed restrictions. Any law that restricts hate speech is actually unconstitutional as of right now, and to move forward with an agenda that would restrict speech in this way on a federal level is simply not supported by the Constitution. Attempting to pass a law that defines hateful speech and outlaws it would be a violation of the first amendment, as it would be very difficult to do so in a way that does not infringe on other liberties granted under the first amendment. Many of those who support hate speech as a first amendment right argue that hateful words do not incite violence unless that violence already existed, and would have happened with or without encouragement. This is a nice thought, and in a perfect world it would even be true, however, this notion is not supported by the massive amount of evidence showing violent acts encouraged by hateful speech.
Based on the first amendment which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”. We the citizens of the United States have the freedom to choose and practice our religion, freedom of speech, freedom of press and freedom of petition. Although this amendment seems to be beneficial for the general public it actually does more harm than good. I do not believe that there is in fact a such thing as freedom. Freedom means the power to act, speak or think as one warns without hindrance or restraint.
Censorship is good for men and women because it protects the people from an harmful environment. Censorship can be used in many ways that result in helping communities, By censoring television, radio, newspapers, and internet it is helping keep children and adults from doing what they shouldn 't be doing such as being in the streets, murdering, selling drugs, using drugs and etc. Censorship is used to suppress what the government views as harmful to society. Censorship is usually thought of as the blurring out of nudity on television or the beeping out of curse words in a song on the radio. Censorship is actually “the control of the information and ideas circulated within a society” (http://gilc.org/speech/osistudy/censorship/) .
• The Alien and Sedition Acts helped our country by removing people who may be harmful to the development of our country. They could also be working against us giving information about what’s going on in our country to other countries potentially endangering us. However, it may have also harmed our country economically. Sending them back may leave us with even less money than we already don’t