Which most of the song now a days got curses. As censorship in books, plays, and movies may affect the overall feeling and meaning of the writing but people should have the freedom of speech to express their self through many ways. While censorship is needed to ensure social media, it also negates freedom of speech. People should be allowed to convey themselves and say what they feel or believe without being restricted. But freedom of speech does not mean that you can say absolutely anything it comes with responsibility and therefore people should ensure they don’t offend
Censorship can be described as the act of cutting out certain material that can be considered obscene or inconvenient for the community. This material can be found in social media such as in the TV, radio, or the internet. Censorship can be challenged because of the first amendment: freedom of speech. Free expression is the right of expressing opinions and ideas without any fear of being restrained or censored. However, freedom of speech does not include the right to incite actions that would harm others or the distribution of obscene material (Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 2000).
However, there are limits to what we are allowed to say. We can’t misuse the freedom of speech, saying words that can cause serious harm (bullying). This form of speech will cause depression, suicide, and stunted social development. When freedom of speech hurts others, then it is not just an opinion anymore; it is a form of hate
To ban speech for this reason, i.e.,for the good of the speaker, tends to undermine the basic right to free speech in the first place. If we turn to the local community who were on the wrong end of hate speech we might want to claim that they could be psychologically harmed, but this is more difficult to demonstrate than harm to a person 's legal rights. It seems, therefore, that Mill 's argument does not allow for state intervention in this case. If we base our defense of speech on the harm principle we are going to have very few sanctions imposed on the spoken and written word. It is only when we can show direct harm to rights, which will almost always mean when an attack is made against a specific individual or a small group of persons, that it is legitimate to impose a sanction.
"Who has the right to monitor internet usage and, if so, when are they allowed to have access to someoneâ€™s internet? The government has the right to monitor someoneâ€™s internet history and usage when there is a potential threat to someoneâ€™s security or safety. Many other aspects of US citizensâ€™ lives are regulated and regulating internet just be adding one more thing to the list. Some argue for limited monitoring, while others believe that the internet should be censored. Censorship of the internet restricts first and ninth amendment rights, but also gives a sense of security to many people.
The journalists at Charlie Hebdo had published multiple cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad. On January 7th 2015, in response to the cartoons, two men claiming to be members of Al Qaeda barged into the magazines office and opened fire, killing 11 people. To Brooks, public reaction to the attack was nothing but hypocritical. Those killed became martyrs for freedom of expression. But if a magazine had published a satirical cartoon of the same sort here in America, they might not have been killed for it, but instead they would not be looked upon in the same light as those who lost their lives in Paris.
Since, this is an ethical question. In my opinion, Freedom of speech should be limited, because it is not acceptable that everybody say whatever he/she wants. There are insufficient of people who frequently use freedom of speech and they are Governors, Journalists, and other citizens. Another thing is the governments are the people who are able to have freedom of speech, so they should not be more doing that. Everyone is the same as the other or there would not be equality, if the governors can have freedom of speech, while the other didn’t then that will be unfair.
Nonetheless, the regulation or limitation of free speech is mostly grounded on the balancing of harm. However, some contend that certain kinds of speech be not regulated. The United States of America currently is of the opinion that regulating racist speech would cause more harm. By this, it is interesting to note that, the US courts generally digresses from the consensus of the international community which has criminalized racial propaganda. It is necessary to bear in mind that, one may have the legal rights to utter hateful words to another person or to display
Based on the analysis we done, the news has a clear stand on opposing the ideology of LGBT in Malaysia. By using the proclamations from the public figures in Malaysia with firm confirmation that there is no room for LGBT community to obtain equal rights as the normal Malaysian community. Islam was the main gatekeeper for this issue as the lifestyle of LGBT community is against the nature of Islam. Apart from that, the identity of Muslim will be destroyed if LGBT is not demolish because there will be issue of liberalism arise among the LGBT and Muslim. A harmonious country of multi-ethnics and diverse cultural backgrounds will be
(1) Asian values? However, furthering individual rights (such as autonomy) is not a popular notion in Singapore. The general ‘Asian value’ of sacrificing individual rights for the community is more prominent. The late Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s first Prime Minister, was an early advocate for community values, encouraging the choosing other rights relating to public order over the freedom of speech. Despite this, the concept of ‘Asian values’ has been highly criticised.