Although Article 19 of the UDHR ,which states that everyone has the right to freedom, does not create a binding effect to Malaysian law, Malaysia as a member of the United Nation should abide by this vow (Lim,2007). Newspaper publishers are restricted from writing fair and accurate information due to the strict regulations and government ownership of the firms thus misleading the public. Also, the government can misuse the laws that restrict the freedom of expression for their own political benefits.Wang (2001) argued that in order for Malaysia to remain as a democratic society; the press should have the freedom to write and criticize without fear from the government. Though the press may exploit their freedom to express, there is no reason for the Malaysian government to restrict them with regulations that only benefits the government.
Some argue that free speech should limit hate speech in order to protect certain American citizens. David van Mi... ... middle of paper ... ...d be constitutional or not is a growing controversy not only in public universities of America, but throughout the entire country as well. American citizens take pride in their freedom, but those values are put to the test when a speaker offends their morality by inciting hate. Ethical citizens must understand that hate speech falls under the same constitutional protection as any other speech. The right of free speech is undividable; when one citizen is denied this right, all citizens are denied.
No one can make you watch, read, or listen to anything. So, if you do not like what is on television, there is a simple solution: close the book, change the radio or television station. Supreme Court Justice William Douglas said it best when he stated, “Restriction of free thought and speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.” Does America want to take the chance of destroying everything on which it was founded, and possibly destroy itself? It is something we, the people, need to sit down and think about.
Suharto's governance embargoed In order to prove this point (government curbs freedom of speech to secure its power), Santoso (cited in Gargan, 1996), president of Alliance of Independent Journalists? observed that the Government prohibits journalists from writing about the succession of Suharto, his family and business activities, and the role of the military in the Government. Censorship regulations were mobilized as a way to deter publications from challenging/ criticizing (the authority) of New Order, especially any discourse that can be identified as leftist either by its content or author's political associations (Sen and Hill, 2007). Suharto was an authority figure who could not be criticized (Kakiailatu, 2007:63-64). Criticisms towards government policies, reporting on corruption other unlawful acts is considered as an offence which result in sanctions (ibid).
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.
Today’s censorship occurs when certain people succeed in imposing their personal or moral values on others. Censorship deals mainly with the first amendment constitutional. “The law requires that if a book is to be removed, an inquiry must be made as to the motivation and intention of the party calling for its removal. If the party’s intention is to deny students access to ideas with which the party disagrees, it is a violation of the First Amendment” [First Amendment Center]. Though the First Amendment bars government authorities from prohibiting the free exercise, abridging the freedom of speech or practicing religious censorship in the United States, individuals have successfully pushed to remove books from public and ... ... middle of paper ... ...hat some readers might find offensive.
The controversy peaked in 1989 and 1990 when a federal law to prohibit flag desecration was passed and subsequently struck down by the Supreme Court. The first amendment guarantees its citizens the right of speaking freely, but is the act of burning a flag "speech"? It is an inflammatory action that should not be protected by a clause meant to insure that citizens would not be suppressed in their efforts express unhappiness with the government or its actions. Limiting a person's right to free expression is not a radical new idea either; speaking or writing false stat... ... middle of paper ... ...ot believe the founding fathers have imagined that citizens of this country would want burn their own flag. In conclusion, the right of free speech never meant persons could do anything they please, regardless of its effects, and when that effect is to undermine the integrity and heritage of our great country we must act.
According to Kathleen Ann Ruane, the author of “Freedom of Speech and Press: Exceptions to the First Amendment,” the Supreme Court has announced types of speech that are unprotected and may be forbidden completely under the First Amendment, ‘fighting words’ is one of them ( 1). An individual’s speech can be categorized as ‘fighting words’ when the nature of their speech, as Ruane has mentioned, “inflict[s] injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace”( 3). Since, ‘fighting words’ speech can have either outcome, Amyx’s speech should be considered as a ‘fighting words’ speech. Lets assumes that Amyx’s sign, “No Gays Allowed,” did not inflict injury; however, due to Amyx’s intention to not allow gays in his store, his expression tries incite an immediate breach of the peace as a result of his discontent with the Supreme Court’s ruling on marriage equality. And the breach of peace is the dissatisfaction and retaliation shown by his customers who supported marriage equality and made critiques via social media.
This filter can, and in some cases has already been, be extended to block other ideas and information the acting government wants to hide from its public (Killock). After serious inspection, it is clear that this filter is essentially pointless for the governments stated use. In my opinion, this legislation is a very serious threat to both the privacy of individuals and free speech and the democratic process One of... ... middle of paper ... ...eates for the modern west. While the United States is more enamored with the concepts of free speech and the absence of government interference in our daily lives, it is not hard to imagine our government passing similar legislation. Already, we have passed legislation like the Patriot Act that greatly restricts our freedoms.
To censor television and motion pictures because of one faction's set of morals is earily similar to book burning. Censorship of media messages is an explicit violation of our constitutionally protected right to expression, and as such, should not be looked to as a solution for modern-day violence in society. The First Amendment states; "Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." (Jefferson, US Constitution). We are an enlightened population well-versed in the understanding of our constitutionally protected natural rights.