Let America Be What Could Be America has never had a definite shape or form in regards to its identity, if ever it had one it was merely a construct. The American values that are constantly contradicts the realities of today. The overly patriotic America is too arrogant to willingly specify its imperfections and remedy them. In Langston Hughes’ “Let America be America Again”, Hughes exposes America’s flaws; he sheds light on the dark America that is of today regarding inequality, racism, and other injustices. Hughes, unlike his patriotic counterparts, comments on America’s faults; inequality and racism, a devil of a capitalistic economy, and the restriction of freedom, but provides some hope of rectifying them.
The American dream is having equality, a voice to be heard and stability in one’s life. However, the American Dream is just that, a dream. It cannot be attained because of the power of our government, the ignorant minds of others and the constant want for more. What should be trivial factors in life, such as: race, gender, social class, wealth, etc., all have a significant effect on the impractical American dream. the “TED Talks” video proves this.
Keith Albow spoke on the risks of the public from repeated sex offenders and in this interview Dr. Albow talked on the use of Chemical Castration to sex offenders and how this actual process underwent, whether is type of punishment would help in lowering the percentage of sex crimes in the United States or is it just a cruel way of punishing the individual by taking his manhood making him feel less of a man. When the whole time the public is looking to ways of punishing the offender with prison time and then enforcing them to treatment for this illness/disorder. (1) The questions that is still unanswered “will this chemical castration work, and will the sex offender continue the treatment once released back to the public?” And then earlier the circumstances where if the sex offender meet the criteria? Are there only certain offenders or depending on what type of sex crime, child molestation, sex abuse, rape, which one? In trying to make sure that the sex offender continues to get the injection each month or every 30 days might be impossible and unable to keep track of how many offenders are returning.
We have it to say very controversial things." (Dailypaul.com.) The issue isn’t about whether racism is good or bad, but whether the government has a legitimate role in intruding into and censoring free speech. It is perfectly appropriate to support the repeal of 18C without directly endorsing racism. Not everything that is considered morally abhorrent by society is criminalised by the government.
America glorifies the wholesome business-oriented, white identity which directly contrasts the reality of immigrants today. America’s aversion to anyone who differs from this ideal has sparked the intense nativism that denies immigrants opportunities that the American Dream is a symbol of. If the American Dream means that everyone has an equal chance in the United States, then it can no longer exist if not everyone is allowed into the United States. Unfairly limiting a single group’s opportunity for success is antithetical to what the American Dream
Some believe that is his action was like patriotic whistleblower he would have pursued any legal action to stop NSA. Such as he could have gone to Congress or court to get the justification or accountabilities of the security agencies surveillances rather contact straightforwardly with the foreign journalist and news officials then load them with all stolen evidence, also let them decide whether they keep them secret or not . He might have an argument on the nobility of his work but apparently, he was careless as this crucial legal issue became a product to promote the foreign news media which cannot be considered as protecting national security . Furthermore, the US alliance with overseas relation became questionable as the document includes unwanted access to other nations security. Highly likely, the news of foreign spying issue is considered as hazardous overall which created more harm than good for our nation.
United States deals with the second scenario and the government’s ability to prosecute leaders of well-organized political parties. The Court also developed new legal tests to measure the risk speech causing harm; the risk formula approach. The risk formula approach questions whether the gravity of the evil justifies the invasion of free speech in order to avoid danger. In Dennis v. Unites States, the Court found that the Secretary of the Communist party in the United States did not have First Amendment protections of free speech, assembly and publication of their political doctrines. Chief Justice Vinson stated in the Court’s decision that Dennis violated the Smith Act, for advocating the overthrowing of the U.S. government.
This is due to the inalienable nature of rights that Americans believed they were born with, such as the right to property. Due to this, the Federalist movement could not be argued to pursue a liberal agenda as their aim was to remove the dominance of state sovereignty and instead, install an elected national government. I would argue that it is a stretch to suggest that the Federalists feared the power of the state legislators, but rather they chose to not underestimate its role. The creation of political conventions where the common man voted, sought to sidestep any potential resistance that the states could have applied. By choosing to create an entirely new political structure in the form of the national conventions, the Republicans were being proactive in their strategy of eliminating the opposition, rather than reacting to their fear of the state legislators.
In the Sullivan, case Justice Brennan wrote that the debate over public issues should be “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” Since the information printed by the New York Times was not accurate toward the public official, the Court understood that free speech should be given more latitude before it was considered libel. Justice Brennan further added that the standard for what is considered malice for public officials “must prove the falsity of the statement and malicious intent,” and a reckless disregard for the truth. With this decision the Court opened the door to have more freedom of expression on debate over public issues. Justice Brennan and the Court understood that the censoring of this type of speech my “chill speech” and hinder the public from speaking freely against public officials. In addition, libel and slander of private citizens must
Still, there are differing opinions in politics on what qualifies as hate speech and where the line should be drawn to upkeep the well-being of other while allowing them to express their opinions freely. In a debate between Julia O’Reilly and Ross Walsh, two notable political minds in American politics, Julia O’Reilly argues: “free[dom] [of] speech does not equal speech free from consequences. When you utilise your right to freedom of speech you implicitly agree that the results of that speech are your responsibility, whether they are positive or negative, and you should be held accountable for them.” (REBUTTAL (Against) – Ross Walsh) The freedom that comes from expression does not erase the responsibility that comes with the consequences