Instigation and advocacy are the deciding factors that determine whether certain expressions should be restricted when examining them through Cohen’s four dimensions. When evaluating expressions using the Harm Principle and Offence Principle, it is said that free speech can be limited or restricted if it physically or mentally harms someone. By understanding the importance of content, manner, intention, and circumstance of an expression, it is better understood whether or not it should be restricted. The first of Cohen’s dimensions is the content of the speech that is being expressed. For example, if two pro-life groups were aggressively chanting outside of an abortion clinic, but one was chanting about adoption and the other was chanting about murder, the contents differ greatly. Abortion is a very sensitive topic, and the people who are vulnerable to mental harm from these expressions are those who are contemplating or have already gotten an abortion. When deciding if either of these expressions should be restricted it is important to look at the implications of calling someone and murderer versus suggesting adoption to that individual …show more content…
Statements can be made in a variety of manners, and some of these are seen to be acceptable while others impose on the Harm and Offence Principles. As an example, imagine a group of individuals peacefully handing out fliers in a sanctuary city that reference the fact that illegal are taking their jobs, and now compare that to a group of individuals rioting with torches and pitchforks in a sanctuary city about how illegal immigrants are taking their jobs. The manner in which the views are expressed when holding weapons is far more violent than when using fliers, can be seen to fall in the category of instigation because of the threat the weapons they have
Freedom of speech has been a controversial issue throughout the world. Our ability to say whatever we want is very important to us as individuals and communities. Although freedom of speech and expression may sometimes be offensive to other people, it is still everyone’s right to express his/her opinion under the American constitution 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 the press”. Although this amendment gave people the right express thier opinions, it still rests in one’s own hands as how far they will go to exercise that right of freedom of speech.
speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual affiliation, gender identity, disability, language ability, ideology, social class, occupation, physical appearance, mental capacity, and any other distinction that might be considered by some as a liability. (p.225)
In a society where freedom of speech, assembly, and press is highly valued, passing a law prohibiting “willfully cause or attempt to cause insubordin...
Freedom of speech is archetypally recognised as a basic human right in free and democratic societies. When contending whether speech that may be deemed offensive should be safeguarded one may refer to the judgement of Redmond-Bate v. DPP:
There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace (Downs 7).
Abortion may be one of the most controversial topics in America today. Abortion is defined as “the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus” (cite dictionary). There are really only two sides on people’s opinion on abortion; pro-life which means abortion should be outlawed and pro-choice which means a woman should be able to decide whether she wants to keep her baby. Thousands of protests and riots have begun due to the fact pro-life activists believe abortion should become illegal. Both sides bring valid points to support their decision that could sway any person’s thoughts. The Roe v. Wade law has allowed abortion to be legal in the U.S since 1973 (Chittom & Newton, 2015). The law “gives women total control over first trimester abortions and grants state legislative control over second and third trimester abortions” (Chittom & Newton, 2015). Ever since the law was put in place, millions of people have tried to overturn it and still
In the Judith Jarvis Thomson’s paper, “A Defense of Abortion”, the author argues that even though the fetus has a right to life, there are morally permissible reasons to have an abortion. Of course there are impermissible reasons to have an abortion, but she points out her reasoning why an abortion would be morally permissible. She believes that a woman should have control of her body and what is inside of her body. A person and a fetus’ right to life have a strong role in whether an abortion would be okay. Thomson continuously uses the story of a violinist to get the reader to understand her point of view.
Lawrence, Charles R., III. "The Debate over Placing Limits on Racist Speech Must Not Ignore the Damage It Does to Its Victims." (n.d.): n. pag. Print.
...ut the article states that simply by changing the way something is referred to is a means of inciting inhumane actions without the hindrance of self-regulating or self-sanctioning behavior. Therefore, who has the right or power to decide what constitutes someone's thoughts, and when the thoughts have crossed the line and become hate crimes?
In the Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire case, the courts assumption was, “that some words are so very bad that on hearing them, an ordinary person must strike out (as reflexively as, when the doctor taps your knee with a hammer, you have to j...
Abortion is defined as a procedure that is done to remove an embryo or fetus from the uterus of its mother in order to prevent its birth (Roth, 2005). Abortion is categorized as a bioethical issue because it relates to the morals of biomedical advances, policies and research. Abortion is a difficult subject that can involve personal morals and beliefs, legality and religious values. The issue is often viewed from either the side of pro-life, which places emphasis on the fetus and its right to life or pro-choice, which emphasizes the rights of the mother to decide the appropriate action (Roth, 2005). This brings the ethical question of should the government have the right to outlaw abortion into debate. The two viewpoints of pro-life and pro-choice explore the two main moral issues concerning abortion (Roth, 2005).
Freedom of speech cannot be considered an absolute freedom, and even society and the legal system recognize the boundaries or general situations where the speech should not be protected. Along with rights comes civil responsib...
These are 5 arguments out of the 19 arguments which were taken into account in Eric Heinze’s book. These were few arguments against hate speech. We can notice that there are a few misconceptions about the topic freedom of speech and what the limitations are.
In the case study of my 17 year old daughter having told me that she is pregnant and considering having an abortion but wanting to consult with her parents in order to make the right decision. The daughter’s choice to speak with her parents causes this family to look at the situation from all angles of each ethical theory: deontological, teleological and virtue ethics. There are so many options and outcomes this 17 year old girl could or could not face based on the decision that she makes. Looking at the situation from the deontological theory aspect the parents first choice would be to think about how having a baby at 17 yrs old would affect the health of her daughter, the unborn child, the lifestyle of the daughter as well as themselves.
"What is freedom of Speech? Without the opportunity to outrage, it stops to exist" said Salman Rushdie. This statement impeccably sums up the endless level-headed discussion about the right to speak freely and abhor discourse. Freedom of discourse and articulation has a place with the gathering of crucial human privileges of each individual on this planet. Nowadays we are seeing the rising worries about hate speech, like if it is secured by this fundamental human right or if the right to speak freely ought to have a few confinements. Given the way that each individual is permitted to express considerations and convictions, forbidding the negative remarks would, actually, deny his or her fundamental rights i.e. the right to speak freely.