If there can be violence without the presence of hate speech, then there can be hate speech without violence. Most importantly, one’s right to their constitutional freedoms is nonnegotiable. The approach that should be taken is effectively making a distinction between hate speech and acts of hate. Citizens have the right to speak their mind, even if it is disrespectful to many, but that does not allow them or others to physically act upon it and cause harm to other civilians, for which they can and definitely ought to be punished. However, this becomes increasingly difficult as the Court has ruled many times that some non-verbal acts are considered speech, as seen in Johnson v. Texas, and vice versa in that all speech is essentially some act.
Desecration of the Flag Should be Prohibited Is it necessary to allow all forms of protest to protect the right of citizens to express grievances against their government? It is not a violation of free speech to outlaw burning of the flag because it is not speech. It will not lead to the limiting of other avenues of protest, of which many are more expressive of specific problems. All attempts to protect the flag short of a Constitutional amendment have failed in the end. A change to the constitution to prohibit the desecration of the U.S. flag is a necessary step to protect one of our most sacred national symbols.
Without the right to express one’s political views like this America would be no different than other countries who oppress their citizens, forbidding them to speak against the government. For this reason it is critical that acts such as flag desecration is allowed under the constitution.
The other form of unprotected freedom of expression is the activities that cause harm to the national flag. It is considered illegal to cause any form of defacing of the national flag. However, in a case; United States v. Eichmann, 496 U.S. 310 (1990) the Supreme Court struck down efforts to denounce burning of a flag citing ambiguity in the constitution on the forms of expression (Lieberman, 1999, p.
Censoring material is the responsibility of the individual, not the institution itself, and certainly not the job of a separate institution. Also, the definition of what is censor-worthy is by no means clear. Exercising the freedom of speech has two sides: the speaker and the listener. Censorship is unfair to both sides. When it takes away the speaker’s Constitutional freedom of expression, it simultaneously revokes the listener’s right to develop an informed opinion based on unobstructed truth.
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.
To contrast, Kushma’s use of logos isn 't as effective as Shipp’s because it ties in with his own opinion and stated that freedom of speech isn 't allowed. With Kushma’s argument by restating the Declaration of Independence and how America should be respected by every individual is just an opinion. In Shipp’s article, “The government cannot control our thoughts or speech or prohibits us from protesting. If the government cannot take away these rights, then certainly we cannot do that to each other”(Shipp, 2). Shipp argues that society is given the opportunity to free speech.
It may not be direct but even indirectly the knowledge that someone might have adverse consequences; such as losing a job as a result of their speech is unacceptable. People have the right to state their opinions without others infringing on them, it was the principle in which America was founded. The first amendment of the constitution of the United States declares that: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” (US Const. amend. I, sec.
Open your eyes, pay attention to the messages around you, and make a conscious effort to analyze what you are accepting into your head. 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. Infringing upon our freedoms of speech and expression is not a substitute for being a responsible viewer. Paternalistic Moralism by the government limits our thinking. A universal code of acceptability confines our thoughts to that of one narrow faction.
From a constitutional ethical standpoint, the fact that the surveillance breaches the protections granted by the fourth amendment, where it states that “The right of the people…against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated…”, and by the fact that the surveillence “chilling effect” has on the people’s right to free speech and press show that the government is overstepping its bounds limiting the privacy and freedom of its citizens. Mass surveillance therefore goes against the ideals of a democratic society, in which individual people capable of making a decision on their accord.