Most of the cases of regulation that he examines display what Thomas Grey of Stanford calls “practical neutrality,” or an intervention of regulation meant to protect individuals from illocutionary speech acts that can incite violence against them or psychological harm that may be incurred because it is intrinsically the right thing to do (305). This kind of regulation has ties to moral and political values, therefore from a liberal standpoint is unacceptable regulation. Altman agrees that hate speech can cause serious psychological damage to those who are victim to it, but maintains that it is not reason enough to regulate hate speech. Instead, he says that the wrong involved in hate speech is the act of treating another individual as a moral subordinate. The interests of these individuals as well as the value of their life are viewed as being inherently less important than the interests and lives of the reference group.
In some circumstances, censorship can work to the advantage of the individual, protecting them against online theft, cyberbullying, and stalking, while ensuring dangerous or offensive content cannot be accessed. Further to these, in dangerous political circumstances censorship can help mitigate against terrorism and foreign aggression. It can also help business and the artistic community, assisting with the protection of copyright and intellectual property. However, these security advantages do come at the cost of civil liberty and can be abused to make censorship a detriment to society. Censorship can limit basic human rights, create ignorant and intellectually starved societies, and in some instances give governments absolute political control.
Freedom of speech allows you to debate about a problem rather than getting in a physical confrontation. Freedom of speech is what people believe you need to solve something that 's problematic. People suppose freedom of speech is very much needed because without it we would be censored from speaking our mind meaning we can 't say what we want on social media or in person. We would be restrained and have to listen to rules on what we can and can 't say in certain places in the U.S. People use freedom of speech to express that murder ,abortion, or even racism is okay and acceptable. People express these things because they are protected by the right to freedom of speech and they can 't be put in jail for it.
If this were the case, we would find ourselves in a situation where famous artworks should apparently be prohibited (give examples). Therefore, censorship measures demand complex and nuanced judgments, which is why their effectiveness cannot be complete. As a result, internet surveillance would probably lead to an abuse of control and restriction of some content, even if they are perfectly legal. Moreover, proponents of censorship can be contradictory in their philosophy. It is worth mentioning that as an opponent of censorship, I certainly do not encourage the violence and aggression that can be found online; big digital companies in particular are an arena for demonstrations of offenses, provided that they enable anyone to post their thoughts publically while hiding behind their computer.
There is no doubt that the act is reprehensible and the teenagers are liable for property damage and intimidating a family, but the charge brought upon them focused on their motivation rather than their criminal acts. The optimal way to deal with hate speech is not to limit or prohibit it any manner, as that will only further enrage people as they feel they are being stripped of their constitutional rights, which they indeed are. Control over hate speech is not going to be a successful deterrent, but imposing stricter laws and regulations will. They discourage volatile acts without punishing an individual for their beliefs, even if they are contrary to the majority’s. To argue against the limitation of hate speech is not automatically equivalent to being racist or not caring about the well-being of others, specifically minority targets, but understanding the manner in which our Constitution operates.
The only thing that the government can do is invoke punishments and consequences for people who say things that the government does not want to be said for whatever reason. So is having free speech really an advantage? Maybe what we mean is that we have free speech without punishment. Or maybe we have free speech with very minimal limits. But should there be limits on speech in the first place?
Third, why does the Internet need censorship in the first place? What do we need protection from? This lack of freedom would inevitably inhibit creativity, confining our thoughts to the realm of what is imprecisely considered “appropriate.” The role of censorship online is a controversial topic, but is overall unwarranted, as it attempts to inject morality into something that should merit personal responsibility. In other words, we should not rely on the government to block certain ideas for us, since we have control over our own Internet usage. While certain freedoms should be limited for the sake of protection, online freedom is not one of them.
Monitoring the Internet has been a controversial issue regarding who should have access to the Internet, what is being put up, and what is being blocked. Some believe the Internet is a human right, while others believe it is a privilege and should be monitored by the government and businesses for their employees. There are both benefits as wells as negatives regarding whether the Internet should be monitored at all, if so, who monitors the internet and what rules are implemented. The Internet has allowed people to express ideas and communicate with each other around the world. Those that are against the government’s interference and monitoring of the Internet believe that they are entitled to privacy and the freedom of self-expression.
He clarifies, “the greatest dangers to free speech in the future will come not from government interference but from speech monopolists” (Wu par. 3). This claim is supported in various places where online businesses or companies choose to take down certain comments due to countless unique reasons. People can no longer express themselves via the internet without having the risk of being reported and suppressed by the company themselves. The national government may give the citizen the option of expressing themselves but companies will not due to the fear of being sued from so called risky or aggressive material.
The right of “freedom of speech” allows individuals to express themselves without any interference or any constraints from the government; thus, this gives the people the right to express their opinions without feeling any kind of fear from the government. In addition, the Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification if there would be any kind of interference, with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. Thus, it is clear enough that the freedom of speech is protected under the US First Amendment; however, some of the courts can still find it hard to differentiate between what should go under that law and what should be considered as “crossing the line” of that law. Therefore, the Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit a particular speech that may; for example, cause a breach of peace or might cause violence. Furthermore, The First Amendment jurisprudence has never provided absolute protection to all forms of speech.