More handpicked essays just for you.
What makes the Bill of Rights important
The importance of the freedom of speech
The importance of the freedom of speech
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: What makes the Bill of Rights important
"I believe that it is not a duty of the government to monitor internet content, unless there is an extreme circumstance where the public would be in danger. It is the first amendment right of the people to utilize their own free speech. This is very important, and we will always need to keep in mind what was intended when the Bill of Rights was created. When we start to limit free speech, we are hindering the speed and quality of ideas that could otherwise be spread very quickly and efficiently. Considering events such as the leaks that state that ‚ÄúThe NSA is turning the internet into a total surveillance system‚Äù, the government is considering everyone using the internet a potential suspect, completely ignoring the fact that the people of the United States should always be considered innocent until proven guilty. If we are always on guard about having to word things the …show more content…
While the internet may be in the sights of politicians, we need to keep in mind the fact that many people use the internet daily, and monitoring everything that this country does is a violation of what our country stands for, we deserve to be treated with the respect that our BIll of Rights grants us, because if we start to create more and more exceptions, we will eventually be no better than the countries that treat their own people as being lesser just because they are not born in a position of power. In order to keep the American Dream strong in our hearts, we need to practice what we preach as a country, and give our people the chance to prove themselves. While there truly are evil people everywhere, we cannot single citizens out just because of something that they said online was taken out of context and picked out by some robot, we need concrete evidence that was fairly obtained, in order to keep us together instead of tearing us apart as a
And the problem the social media sites are helping the NSA when we have put all of our trust and that easily it could be revoked. According to Rob D 'Ovido “Having traded our freedoms for a phantom promise of security, government eyes” (D 'Ovido). For example, Cameron Dambrosio, a teenager from Massachusetts posted a video online a rap he made about the Boston marathon bombing, the rap had references to the white house and the bombing itself, which resulted in his getting arrested in May 2013, and charging him with communicating terrorist threats, which could land him a twenty year sentence. One cannot argue that he used foul language, and said words that were ill-mannered, but that does not give the right to officials to arrest people on a basis of rap. What happen with freedom of speech? People out in the middle east are uprooting entire regimes, because they are not giving them the basic human right, like freedom of speech or privacy. For an example, look at Egypt, they have over thrown an regime that ruled for 40 years. I am not comparing those awful regimes to our government, all we need is to calculate our choices more, and the government should have more faith in the citizens. We live in an era where we are being watched by surveillance cameras 24/7, and also having our calls being tapped. Even with all the peeping toms, censorship, and the spying, freedom of speech
Recently in the city of Jesse James, Texas there was yet another mass shooting incident. Several parishioners at a local baptist church were attacked. At least a dozen individuals were killed and at least that many wounded. After the fact, the city council has decided to pass legislation making several, restrictive changes on firearms and their ownership. This action raises questions regarding the constitutionality of this action.
The United States government is up to its ears in the personal information it has collected from its citizens. Americans are becoming increasingly “aware of these slowly eroding walls of privacy,”(Hirsh) and more than half polled admit concern “about the overall accumulation of personal information about them “by […] law enforcement, government, […] and other groups,” though “they accept it as an unavoidable modern phenomenon” (Hirsh). The question is, how far is too far to trust the government with the collection, proper storage, and usage of this information? Studies show that “Americans believe that business, government, social-media sites, and other groups are accessing their most personal information without their consent” (Hirsh). People should be given the ability to admit or deny access to their personal information. The government does not have a right to use whatever information it wants for any purpose it wishes. Michael Hayden, once the NSA director for seven years, says, “Even I recognize that it's one thing for Google to know too much, because they aren't putting me in jail. It's another thing for government, because they can coerce me” (Hirsh). The United States government's ability to collect information about its citizens and residents should be restricted by what kind of information it can take, how it can acquire it, and what it can use it for.
Gun violence in America has escalated drastically over the years. But it seems the only time we are outraged about the shootings or abuse of the 2nd Amendment is when there is a massacre of innocent people or a cop misusing his power and killing an innocent black person. “There have been at least 110 mass shootings in the US since 2009 at least 33 of which occurred in a public place” (TJF). After the vigils and outcries for change for change that fall on deaf ears, the problem is ignored and the abuse of the 2nd Amendment continues. There is no reform but instead there is another battle between the NRA, Congress, and the President of the United States. Gun regulation is constantly debated and is a very subjective topic because of the differing
"The action of monitoring the internet, social media, and other internet based platforms does against both the Fifth Amendment as well as human rights. Schools and the federal government should not have the right to monitor the private use of the internet the way monitoring is currently being done. The federal government claims to be monitoring citizens to protect cyber-terrorism and potential threats to the nation. This process has been shown to work; however, while the government is collecting information to “protect†the United States, it is also using the collected information to analyze the citizens of the United States. The fight against international and domestic terrorism is on-going and the federal government works to keep its
I say that the government should have a limit on when they can monitor. The government is meant to keep the people safe, but that does not mean the government should know everything people do. This would include the government monitoring people’s internet content. With monitoring internet content the federal government deals with national matters, protection of private content from the government, it is for protecting the people, and schools can view students posts.
The liberty we thought we had is slowly being taken away from us. From the size of soft drinks served at fast-food restaurants to the gender of marriage partners, our lives are being regulated by the government. “The War On Negative Liberty” by Katherine Mangu-Ward promotes negative liberty, freedom from someone or a group giving or taking away our rights, versus positive liberty, freedom from an individual’s resources or power such as poverty or race. Besides governmental control in real life, we are also being watched and regulated through cyber space. The article, “George Orwell…Meet Mark Zuckerberg” by Lori Andrews examines this exact issue. The article by Andrews really brings up the fact that we are being watched over every single click we make online. Although,
Addressing government surveillance in so broad a medium as the internet necessitates some background information. There are a few key moments to identify. Prior to 9/11, Congress enacted FISA, or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. “Congress originally strictly limited FISA's scope so that it could only be used if ‘the primary purpose’ of government surveillance of Americans was foreign-intelligence gathering”; following the 9/11 attacks, the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, “amended FISA and significantly weakened this limitation,” enabling the government to demonstrate a significant purpose for surveilling nationals for foreign intelligence (Shamsi 7). The events of 9/11 shook the world, instilling a desire among American and other
"In the United States and other countries around the world, our governments are hard at work creating laws, commanding a military, and just keeping the country running smoothly in general. But there are some aspects of people's lives that the topic of government involvement is still up for discussion. One of the most controversial aspects is how much, if at all, our governments should monitor our internet. Some say that the government should get out of their personal lives, while others feel the need for the monitoring to keep them, and others, out of trouble. I don’t think that there is just one simple answer. It all depends on the situation of each individual citizen.
There are certain areas of a person's life that should be kept private. One of those is the internet. The people of America should be able to keep their internet use to themselves. The government should not regulate citizens internet use because it takes away peoples freedom of speech, it would cost the government more money, and it is an invasion of citizens privacy. The government regulates many situations in citizens life and this should not be one of them.
The internet is wondrous; it can be a source of great recreation, with entertaining videos, games, and online communities that have similar interests. It can be an amazing tool for learning, with vast amounts of free information and how-to videos. The internet is also great for replacing the now out-dated ways of communicating and staying in touch with family and friends, with e-mail and social networking websites. Sharing information has been made easier than ever; consequently, the collection of information has been made all that much easier. When there is so much information out there one would have to be crazy not to hoard as much of it as possible, right? This is of course referring to the United States’ very own NSA (National Security Agency). The NSA seems to have a hoarding complex as well as no regard for the any person’s privacy on the internet, including U.S. citizens. Having an agency dedicated on collecting information on foreign citizens is bad for foreign relations; some countries have even started to take action. Having that same agency also spy on their own citizens is tremendously worse for domestic relations, protests and rallies have been organized to raise awareness and attempt to put a stop to these heinous acts of privacy invasion. What is worse is that the United States government has been actively trying to pass bills and acts, in secret courts, to make the collection of all this data easier. The government attempts to justify these acts of privacy invasion by claiming that it is really for the protection of society. If there was a benefit to this mass collection of data it would be moot in comparison to all the unlawful activity and detriments spying on pretty much everyone causes. At this point the inter...
However, government agencies, especially in America, continue to lobby for increased surveillance capabilities, particularly as technologies change and move in the direction of social media. Communications surveillance has extended to Internet and digital communications. law enforcement agencies, like the NSA, have required internet providers and telecommunications companies to monitor users’ traffic. Many of these activities are performed under ambiguous legal basis and remain unknown to the general public, although the media’s recent preoccupation with these surveillance and privacy issues is a setting a trending agenda.
Digital privacy concerns, which have been a major issue in our country since 2001, increasingly violate our basic human rights as global citizens. The growing amount of government surveillance has manifested in the enactment of acts such as SOPA and CISPA. Although their intent on stopping digital piracy and attacks were clear, both were immediately met with harsh criticism; they allowed big corporations to violate our privacy rights by sharing our personal information with both other companies and the government. Our President, although publicly expressing his acknowledgement of the issue, failed to discuss an array of other pressing dilemmas regulated by the recently exposed National Security Agency (NSA), especially those involving the mass data stockpiles and the rights of foreigners against immoderate and disproportionate surveillance by the US. Furthermore, the intentions of the NSA still remain unclear; why is the collection and the extended retention of this data useful? Those in power believe that the collection of this information allows them to preempt terrorist attacks; a very difficult claim to prove. Our lack of clear answers demonstrate the need for a larger audience who support government transparency. The NSA’s misconduct has dealt multiple blows to the rights of millions both at home and abroad, and the amount of secrecy involving this agency shrouds it in obscurity, inhibiting public debate about these crucial matters.
The Internet provides a gateway for an individual to speak freely and anonymously without being targeted to what he or she said. With this said, one of the biggest issues concerning the Internet today is freedom of speech. The issue of free speech on the Internet has been a topic of discussion around the world within the past years. It is a unique communication medium and is powerful than the traditional media[2]. Because the Internet can not be compared equally to other mediums of communication, it deserves the utmost freedom of speech protection from the government. The restriction of speech on the Internet takes away from individual's rights and freedom from experiencing the Internet's benefits and uses. Information found on the Internet is endless and boundless and this poses the question, "should the government be allowed to regulate the information and content being transmitted or posted online?"
Another solution that could be counted as more helpful is helping to stop poverty and give poor people an education. If you’re able to educate the families they will be able to get their own job, stopping them needing to put their children into child labour because they will have enough money.