There was an article saying that in 2007, the government subpoenaed amazon.com to obtain book purchasing records of amazons customers. Judge Stephen Crocker said that, “ the subpoena is troubling because it permits the government to peek into the reading habits of specific individuals with out their knowledge or permission. It is an unsettling and un-American scenario to envision federal agents nosing through the reading lists of law-abiding citizens while hunting for evidence against somebody else.” This article brings into question the constitutional rights of the 4th and 9th amendments, of warrants and privacy of citizens: should the government be able to look into private records showing purchases and other private businesses of …show more content…
Associated press. "Anti-Muslim images are protected speech, Minn. officials say." Web. A recent article states that superbowl-style ads could soon be coming to your TV. This means that independent corporations could advertise for a political candidate on TV. Now, the question here is should corporations be able to advertise for political candidates? Associated press. "Super bowl-style corporate ads for candidates?" Web. An article says that the supreme court has dismissed a case of a soldier at fort riley when he says he was rights were violated when prayers were made at fort riley regardless of soldiers religions, or the fact he was atheist. The question is that should forts be able to hold religious prayers regardless of soldier’s religions? Associated press. "Court dismisses atheists suit against pentagon." Web. Outline1- hook - Imagine that someone puts up posters that a very offensive and critical of your religion, next to a place of worship for your religion. Well a man in Minneapolis put up some anti-Muslim posters near a mosque and a Somali-owned store. The store owner was planning on pressing charges but the prosecutors dropped the charges because they were struck down saying that the posters were protected by the first amendment. Which I totally agree with in saying that someone should be able to put up religious images, even if it does offend someone. Argument1- Anyone should be
Throughout history we have seen how the government can censor the media during a time of war, in despite of the first amendment. We are entitled to our voices and opinions and by censoring what the media and citizens feel, not allowing them to express their concerns or ideas or concepts is an atrocity. The government decides if we enter a war not the citizens. Are we are never allowed to speak out against a war? Does this mean we are unpatriotic or unamerican? During the Civil War, the military often kept reporters off the battlefields. Years later, the U.S. entered the First World War and took control of all radio communications and censored all photographs. Congress then passed the Espionage and
Since the terrorist suicide bombed the world trade center and a wing of the pentagon, there has been a change in the relationship between the United States government and the people. The executive branch has taken steps that undermine the principles in the United States constitution. In order to ensure a more democratic society, we have to tell the difference between effective governing and individual freedom. There is one main topic I'm going to talk about how the 1st amendment, 4th amendment, 5th amendment, and 6th amendment are being eroded by the USA PARTRIOT Act which introduced a overabundance of legislative changes which considerably increased the surveillance and investigative powers of law enforcement agencies in the United
Now days our culture has become increasingly integrated and more accepting of racial diversity. This means there are situations that may arise through, school, and jobs, cross cultural relationships or interracial dating where one may find themselves in an environment where the people and the culture is much different from their own. To prevent awkward moments, miss understandings or altercations that could jeopardize relationships, I have compiled a list of rules and norms for black barbeques/cookouts for my Caucasian friends and those who might attending one of these occasions as a minority.
In order to find truth to anything, one must make multiple suggestions, ask many questions, and sometimes ponder the unspeakable. Without doing so, there would be no process of elimination; therefore, truth would be virtually unattainable. Now, in our attempts to either find truth, express our beliefs and opinions, or generally use the rights we are given constitutionally, we are often being criticized and even reprimanded. Our freedom to voice our opinion(s) is being challenged, as critics of free speech are taking offense to what seems like anything and everything merely controversial and arguably prejudice. As people continue to strive for a nation free of prejudice and discrimination, where everyone is equal, safe and
Is the Patriot Act Unconstitutional? The Patriot Act was introduced in 2001 after the September 11 attacks. The Patriot Acts purpose is to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world. The Patriot Act Is meant to help stop terrorism by making it easier to get search warrants for suspected terrorists. The purpose of the Patriot Act is to enable law enforcement officials to track down and punish those responsible for the attacks on 9/11 and to protect against any similar attacks. The Act grants the government the powers to trace and intercept terrorist communications both for law enforcement and intelligence purposes. This means that the government can use wire taps, monitor email traffic, confiscate
Benjamin Franklin, one of the founding fathers of the United States, once said “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” In America’s society today, some are willing to sacrifice their civil liberties in order to gain protection and security over some potential threat. Especially after the events of September 11th and several attempted bombings in U.S. cities. This sacrifice of individual freedoms such as the freedom of speech, expression, the right to information, to new technologies, and so forth, for additional protection is more of a loss than a gain. Citizens of the United States deserve equal liberty and safety overall, as someone should not have to give up
Prompt One: (Threat of Terrorism): Looking at today’s headlines, it has become apparent that terrorism and terrorist threats are now in our backyard. To protect our citizens, a new approach should be taken at every level of government, from local, state, regional, and global. Homeland Security currently has a plethora of updated and ever evolving laws that are particular with each threat we are facing ranging from Ammonium Nitrate Regulations, Chemical Security, Employment Issues, as well as Travel Security (DHS, 2016). The enactment of the Patriot Act allowed the United States Government to use surveillance against more crimes of terror. This change opened up doors for the federal agents to have easier access to warrants as well as allowed these agents to more closely follow terrorists that have evaded detection for years. This Act, however, took extreme measures to be able to pass and created such a time gap that potential terrorists were able to slip through the cracks while the United States was waiting for this Act to be authorized. The creation of new laws that target terrorism should have a more direct and open path to Congress than typical legislation and bills that make their way through Congress. Looking at past terrorist acts, it has become blatantly obvious that cell phone companies have notoriously been the deciding factor when attempting to gather intelligence from a terrorist phone before and after acts of terrorism on domestic soil
In the wake of September 11, many things happened very quickly. Along with the beginning of a '"'war'"' against terrorism, an act was passed to help prevent future terrorism in the USA. The name of this is the USA Patriot Act. The act legalizes many surveillance techniques that were once prohibited. The act has been passed without debate, and the new privileges given to our government have not been thoroughly examined. The law enforcers of our country are now capable of monitoring the citizens in ways most people are not aware of. Some of the surveillance laws are self-terminating after four years, but many of the more important laws are permanent. What will these new surveillance laws be used for after the war on
College is a time when most individuals are experiencing major changes and begin to explore new perspectives. The transition in becoming more independent, creating new insights and peer influence are key factors in changing the perspective of an individual. Students are faced with new ideas from their professors, family and fellow peers. Through that acquired knowledge many students decide that they either agree or disagree with the perspectives that they are taught. Allowing the right of ‘Free Speech’ on public college campuses has become an important issue that many public colleges are starting to address. In college students are capable of
Like most democratic nations in the world, the United States has had its own fair share of issues with hate speech. There has been a lot of controversy over whether hate speech should be regulated. In analyzing the concept of free speech, one cannot ignore that it does not occur in a vacuum. There have been all types of debasements ranging from ethnic, religious, racial and gendered stereotyping. Freedom of speech inherently includes all other fundamental human rights. Hence, as acknowledged through natural rights, other rights and personhood should adamantly be included within this scope of this protection. Hate speech is a limit on free speech, as it not only puts the victim under deliberate psychological and physical harm, but also
Freedom of speech is more than just the right to say what one pleases. Freedom of speech is the right to voice your opinion on certain topics or dilemmas around you. This basic right given to us in the First Amendment is being challenged by colleges who encourage “freedom of speech” with certain restrictions.
What is free speech? Does the term ‘free speech’ cover offensive words? Painful ones? Words that disrespect others? What about objectionable, or even wrong beliefs? When is speech illegal? What is exactly meant by free speech? According to Rampell, the term ‘free speech’ includes ‘hate speech’, and is therefore protected by the first amendment (np). This means that even messages we don’t like, agree with, feel uncomfortable about, or even are disgusted by, are legal. Unfortunately, many college students consider harmful words an assault, and some students believe that such verbal attacks can and should be met with violence (French np). Students and speakers today are discriminated against in classrooms and other scenes where free speech and debate should be especially cherished.
Throughout history, the United States Constitution has been put to the test over the issue of free speech. The First Amendment states, "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." Even though free speech is one of the core American values proudly embedded in each citizen, some poopAmericans find themselves torn between whether or not to limit the freedom of speech on behalf of hate speech. Most law-abiding citizens disagree with hate speech, but must realize even speech that promotes hate, racism, and even crime
Freedom of speech in America is defined by the right to express any opinions without any censorship or restraint. But it isn’t just defined by the words people speak aloud. It’s the actions they take part in to support the words they express. The writing of books and essays, creating artwork, giving speeches to grand crowds, voting, protesting. But do all people have the right to speak their mind? Should people be able to speak freely, to express opinions and thoughts, as promised in the United States constitution? A controversial topic, with many different opinions weighing in from around the world.
I have an idea! How about we let everyone freely speak their minds about issues and ideas. Some will be better than others will of course, but the outcome will be a compilation of everyone’s best thoughts. Everyone that is, except you. We, meaning the country, decided that whatever it is that you have to say isn’t all that important and it is recommended that you keep all your thoughts to yourself as it is hard not to be offensive to everyone at the same time. By offensive I mean to displease someone. In general, no one really likes what you have to say. Therefore it has been decided that you and only you will be silenced.