Piracy of digital information today is a huge problem. However, an even bigger problem is the way that the government and private companies react to it. Private companies make the problem even worse by making over-protective software secutiy systems that also limit our freedom. The government even takes these laws so seriously as to arrest innocent people. Piracy itself is a problem, but even worse is the way it is being handled.
The Defamation Act 2013 was passed to help regulation on defamation to deliver more effective protection for freedom of speech, while at the same time ensuring that people who have been defamed are able to protect their reputation. It is often difficult to know which personal remarks are proper and which run afoul of defamation law. Defamation is a broad word that covers every publication that damages someone's character. The basic essentials of a cause of act for defamation are: A untruthful and offensive statement regarding another; The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party; If the offensive situation is of public concern, fault amounting at least to carelessness on the share of the publisher; and Injury to the plaintiff. Slander and libel are both kinds of defamation, which refers to statements that hurt another person's name.
This leads to a sense of nonchalance about plagiarizing. Unfortunately, this mentality is growing and plagiarism is becoming a very controversial topic. As Nels Griffin (Write or wrong: Thoughts on plagiarism) stated, there needs to be a distinction between intentional and blatant plagiarism, and accidental or unintentional plagiarism. After all, plagiarism by its own definition is borrowing or stealing other people’s ideas or words and not giving them credit. When you borrow without permission, that is known as stealing, which hurts the person you stole from and your personal integrity.
Defamation is a very specific area of law that requires certain and specific elements of fact to be maintained. Therefore in order to prove that defamation had taken place, the plaintiff needs to fulfill three elements. Firstly, to be accused of defamation, the plaintiff has to prove that the statement or communication is defamatory, which in another word he or she had made a false statement about you. The key issue in defamation is that it has caused damage to a person’s reputation. To test whether a statement is considered defamatory, one has to prove that: “Does the communication lower or harm the plaintiff’s reputation, leading the plaintiff being shunned, avoided, exposed to hatred or hold the plaintiff up to ridicule?” This is judge from the viewpoints of right-thinking members of society which means ‘ordinary reasonable people in general in the community’.
However, while doing so it can provide ethical problems. Specifically defamation to a specific group. This can be done because by trying to provide both sides in a story you can unintentionally make a specific group of people look negative to the public eye. An example of unethical journalistic practices can be found constantly
It is stated that “the true injustice of exaggerated publicity is its ability to present unsupported views which may affect the trial in unchangeable ways” (Breheny and Kelly, 2012: 377-378) which means the publicity prejudice causes partial trials without verified evidence and exploits the defendants’ rights. In addition, the unproven opinion usually spreads extensively and rapidly which is true, for instance the Taylor sisters were prosecuted by media they were already believed to be killers and this belief still haunted them despite the fact that they were released. Furthermore, although other features have a significant part in biased jury, prejudicial publicity is the most influent cause of bias (Geragos, 2006). The harmful effect of press disclosure resulting in cases R. v Taylor (1994) was the publication of the still from victim’s wedding video in newspapers and the headlines of newspapers, yet it was never revealed in the courtroom; therefore, during the appeal, the convictions were considered as unsafe and unsatisfied because the clarification of witness’ statement was failed. Nonetheless, Carey (1985), suggests that from the analysis of practical observes on public prejudice reveals that the juries’ decisions based on the information in courtrooms rather that on the external data from the media.
One of these limits is the incitement to violence. Freedom of speech is a double-edged sword that can change the course of many things; lives, civilizations, even history. For many people this liberty to express their feelings and beliefs has been beneficial. Unfortunately, the same liberty has been counterproductive for other people. There is a big difference between freedom of speech and violating the right of intimacy.
Imagine writing an article about a war between your country and another one. The writer would most definitely be bias towards their country because without it the article would be boring and factual. For instance, this essay is bias because it is my opinion on propaganda while others may have a totally different one, I am trying to sell, or convince you that my stand on propaganda is the right way to think and that you should too. Propagandists use news as a propaganda machine and will hide propaganda in anything that they get the chance to.
Unfortunately, this freedom is sometimes exercised in a wrong way obliging the Government to use its power to censor demonstrators, because they behave violently and irrationally. It is clear, then, that it is highly positive that people have freedom of expression, but on the other hand, that freedom must be used in logical and civilized terms, to improve life in society, otherwise its bad use may lead to a social chaos. Press censorship is quite common nowadays. The press plays an important part in modern societies. Although there are some exceptions, some journalists and reporters are nowadays mor reliable than most of the politicians.
Flames, tear gas, riots, city blocks destroyed; all consequences of a single statement. In today's modern society, acts of derogatory communication, known as hate speech, have become a controversial topic in America. Although hate speech is awful, it should be protected by the first amendment. Hate speech should continue being permitted because omitting such phrases would set a precedent for censorship, and oppress the minority. Such censorship would lead to a totalitarian rule by the majority.