But it can only do so to the extent that humans are determined to use it towards those ends.” He wants the people to see how television can be used as more than entertainment but as a weapon of knowledge. Another major similarity between the two speeches is that they are both against conformity. The definition of conformity is behavior in accordance with socially accepted conventions or standards. Conformity is a comfort method and is used when people don't want or like change in their lives. V’s way of arguing against conformity is by stating “And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity.” What he means by this is that long time ago there was freedom and now people just do what the government want them
However, to avoid judgment altogether is impossible for man. No matter what, humans will always have an initial judgment of someone or something. What truly determines our character is how we react to our initial judgment. When people generalize others as ugly, poor, or monstrous, people are only separating themselves from others as if to mentally and physically block them from their lives and to make themselves feel superior. Having a primary judgment is natural, but preventing oneself from experiencing human interaction because of some broad title is uncalled for and rude.
In the hypothetical commonwealth, subjects have particularly restricted liberty and have to follow several strict commandments (Hobbes 98-104). One commandment in particular is quite bothersome to me, as it states that subjects cannot speak out negatively against their government (the sovereign) (Hobbes 100). Furthermore, if a subject was to violate the law they could even face death (Hobbes 100). This type of censorship of different political ideologies seems similar to that of corrupt regimes in contemporary society. The idea of having to live in a society in which I would have to fear critiquing those in power because doing so would endanger my life is deeply unnerving.
Such censorship would lead to a totalitarian rule by the majority . While hate speech should be better understood, bigoted acts should not be included in hate speech or harmful subjective phrases. hate speech has become a spotlight topic and there is a discussion if free speech should protect it. The main opposition against free speech being an
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.
Even if we assume, however, that Hobbes’ state of nature is true, it still would not justify obeying a tyrannical government. Having to live under a tyrannical government that does not protect one’s rights is in no way better than having to compete with other people for survival. In competing with other people, at least everyone is on equal footing. However, when competing against a government, then there is a power imbalance and the government can use its power to oppress the people. Therefore, the people should have the right to rebel against such a government.
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.
As a noun, conflict means a serious disagreement, typically a one that lasts for quite a long period of time. However, as a verb, conflict means being incompatible, at variance and also, clash. People often use the word ‘conflict’ to describe a process. According to Wikipedia, Conflict refers to some form of friction, or discord arising when the beliefs or actions of one individual is either resisted by or unacceptable by other individuals. In addition, Michael Nicholson, an English journalist defines it
Even to bridge the self-interest (the press interest) with society, the impossible conflict of interests, and as a bridge between the interests of the press and the government that can "fight directly". But the positive interaction of government-press-society does not mean that each party must lose the function of its functional idealism. For if each existence is not approached with independent and interdependent responsibilities and obligations, it can be ascertained that each party will not be able to assume its rights and responsibilities. It means that the government should be given authority, as an authorized and responsible body to regulate the interests and spheres of its citizens. The press must remain authorized to carry out its distinctive social control functions.
He vehemently declares that the paper cannot be released to the public because it is brimming with ideas that “might easily decondition the more unsettled minds among the higher castes” (Huxley 162). This is a perfect example of the World State regulating what ideas the public has access to. Mond fears that exposing unpopular thoughts to the people, especially to the higher castes who are more capable of critical thinking since they were not poisoned during Bokanovsky’s Process, will tear apart the fabric of society. This paper is a threat to stability and therefore it forbidden to be released. Although many similarities can be drawn between the suppression of speech in Brave New World and the suppression of speech in today’s society, there’s one thing that Huxley was wrong about.
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.
Therefore, people may see going against an unjust law as something to avoid because of the aftereffect they will be having to face. Furthermore, It is right to oppose something that is unjust. Individuals should do what they best believe is right in their opinions but laws shouldn’t be fully subjected by the people only or else it may lead to future conflicts and misleading mistakes. Overall, by desired changes, it causes destructive tension for
I found a censored quote on the ‘American Library Association’ . The quote stated “First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end.” I believe this quote is stating that first amendment freedom is the most dangerous amendment when readers want and or don’t want the book to be public to all people. I also think the government making the decision is bad because its people deciding, not the government. They can 't just take our rights away from us and decide independently. 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.
I believe someone who shows restraint can help other people toward the same path. Showing restraint can lead oneself and many others to benefits. Someone who shows restraint can be much more open minded than other people. When working with a group of people on a project, sometimes there can be one person who really wants his ideas to chosen. This person tends to get very narrow minded and focuses solely on his own ideas.