In section two of the sedition act it consists of freedom of press, which has some boundaries. It states that the government has every right to punish anyone who writes any defamatory and libel statements against the government. Mostly likely they would get a fine. I do believe that Americans shouldn’t write any false statements about the government; however I do believe that they have the right to criticize the government. Therefore, I have a strong belief that Americans do write some authentic statements that the government tries to hide from us, but there is some who write libel statement just to get people attention.
The controversy that must be discussed is whether or not this legislation fully or in part has violated the Constitution and/or endangered our civil liberties in any way. John Kerry former presidential candidate is opposed to the patriot act stating ?We are a nation of laws and liberties, not of a knock in the night. So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time.? John Kerry is right in suggesting that the patriot act is thinning our freedoms.
Web. 16 Oct. 2011. . PGE. N.p., n.d. Web.
In response to the American Revolutionary War, the Constitution of the United States was created. In addition to that, the Bill of Rights was proposed to further protect individual’s rights. Which stated that “Congress shall make no law …abridging the freedom of speech.” This raises the question over if freedom of speech should be protected or if it should be deemed positive and necessary by the majority of the rulers. Some believe that free speech should be protected because of clearly stated rights in the constitution and because it helps contribute to a society; while others believe that it should be limited to only say positive things about the government because that contributes to the protection of national security and the government legally has the right too. Argument for the protection of free speech Those who support the protection of free speech base their ideas on the principles of democracy.
I personally disagree with the practice of indefinite detention and believe that all of those held illegally by The US government should be granted a writ of Habeas Corpus. I will explore the arguments of both of those who morally agree and disagree, examine the inconsistencies in both arguments. The Consequentialist Position Those who believe that indefinitely detaining terrorist suspects is the only way to prevent future terrorist attacks by that individual, ethically adhere to a certain viewpoint. Utilitarianism holds as its central tenant that as long as a specific action creates greater amounts of happiness than unhappiness, that specific action is morally justified (Vaughn, 2012). Consequentialists believe that the sacrifice of a few individual's rights is worth the safety of the majority.
After 9/11 there was a huge pull towards safety. The nation was shaken and afraid, we needed protection. But where has that protection gotten us? The price it came at was our constitutional rights, and its time for the American people to reassess the situation and decide whether or not they’ve changed their minds. The government has done a good job of proving that we cannot have both freedom and safety, and now its time to chose which is more important to us as a nation.
This phenomenon contradicts all aspects of democracy by giving indispensable powers to these officials for life, by taking away the people’s right to representation by election, and by allowing certain degrees of judicial activism. Unelected judges that make important decisions for the American Government are not held responsible or accountable for any actions that appear to be wrong in the public’s eye because they cannot be removed from office except when having been convicted of a felony. By giving life tenure to appointed officials, the founding fathers protected them from political pressure. But, by taking away the accountability of these officials, the framers actually produced a perfect opportunity for krytocracy, a government ruled by judges. When a justice, or anyone for that matter, is secured with a job for life, there is not enough incentive motivating him to perform to the best of his ability.
Incorrect Interpretation of the USA Patriot Act The USA Patriot Act is a legitimate law. It was rightly passed in light of the terrorist attacks on American ground. Americans have a right to be concerned about terrorism. However, the fear of the terrorists should not make Americans give up their way of life. Americans should not be forced to sacrifice what our country is proud of, including democracy and freedom of expression.
Racism, a morally wrong idea that has been combated in numerous ways by many first world governments. When observing the laws used to combat it, one must observe the consequences of such actions. Even though these laws have no intent to harm a “socioeconomic disadvantaged class,” they may discriminate against a different socioeconomic class. One of these laws, or programs, is the Affirmative Action Program, put into effect when “President John F. Kennedy signed an executive order to unite the workforces on projects without regard to race, creed, color or national origin” (Finkelman, 2004). Many people argue, that it is not necessary in this modern era, and that it only causes harm.