In the end, I will conclude that we should not agree with Altman despite his well intentioned moral convictions to push for hate speech regulation. Although hate speech is a horrible act, people must learn to overcome and persevere through difficult situations and not leave it to the law to protect their feelings and insecurities. I. Altman’s Position: Altman is very careful while proscribing a solution to the issues surrounding the regulation hate speech. He maintains that regulations on hate speech must be view point neutral, meaning that no moral, political, or religious convictions be involved in decisions of regulation. Most of the cases of regulation that he examines display what Thomas Grey of Stanford calls “practical neutrality,” or an intervention of regulation meant to protect individuals from illocutionary speech acts that can incite violence against them or psychological harm that may be incurred because it is intrinsically the right thing to do (305).
Web. 4 Mar. 2010. Srinivas, M. N. “Gandhi’s Religion.” Economic and Political Weekly. 30.25 (1995): 1489- 1491.
Books should not be banned because book censorship is unnecessary, limits knowledge, and violates the fundamental principles of this country. Although some may say that certain books contain graphic/violent content, banning such books is not an effective method to prevent young children from being exposed to such content, and therefore is unnecessary. One person that harbors such beliefs is Christina Healey. In her article “Book Banning can be Justified in Some Cases,” she argues that in some cases, book banning is... ... middle of paper ... ... press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” When it comes to the issue of book banning, the First Amendment states that the government cannot make any laws that interfere with the freedom of the press. The Supreme Court has commonly upheld this right.
As a result, when adults are exposed to programs including offensive language and behavior, they do not take it serious and perhaps feel more relaxed. Moreover, in a democratic country, individuals have the right to choose what they love to see as long as they do not breach the law. To sum up, to set a single standard in the censorship of all programs is inappropriate and irrational. It is better to use different criterions to censor broadcast media according to different groups of audience. Government should rigorously censor programs provided for children while do l... ... middle of paper ... ... On the other hand, censorship on adult programs that broadcasted mainly at night could be less or even none.
Obviously if you don’t know in advance that someone is trying to rile up a crowd, you can’t censor them live, so censorship would not help in such a situation. Such people are criminals and can be dealt with accordingly, and the people have a right to know what was being said to influence their peers, so that they can prepare themselves for whatever onslaught may occur. To what extent should censorship be allowed? Censorship itself should not be illegal, but it should not be done by the government either. Censorship should be something that people and businesses choose to do on their own, for their own reasons.
Is Censorship Fair The First Amendment grants Americans the right to have freedom of speech. Censorship is not fair although it may protect “morals” that some people may have censorship still causes us to miss important things when it comes to news broadcasts and other media updates. The basic foundation of democracy is the first Amendments promise of freedom of expression. This is basic freedom and the idea should be practiced not preserved. What is censorship?
“Irony in ‘The Story of an Hour’.” Free-Termpaper. N.p., 2005. Web. 17 Mar 2014. Kingtut.
The drugs in the mind constricting category should deter the user from learning, and even if one did claim to gain some sort of knowledge from the high, the knowledge, in the end, would amount to meaningless, confused thought. The rare drugs which stimulate violence, such as angel dust, must definitely be considered mind-constricting because not only does the user not gain knowledge from the experience, but the user destroys self-control and liberty and triggers desires to act immorally. This division of drugs into categories does seem to be of the nature of platonic perfectionism but the ideology is not entirely based on this ethical theory and some arguments might seem to conflict with its philosophy. Using mind constricting drugs leads to immoral outcomes and therefore, mind constricting drugs must be illegal in order to at least minimize the amount of such outcomes. Making mind constricting drugs illegal prevents people from using substances which can only lessen one's quality of life and inevitably, destroy ma... ... middle of paper ... ... leads to living a meaningful and precious life.
If this were the case, we would find ourselves in a situation where famous artworks should apparently be prohibited (give examples). Therefore, censorship measures demand complex and nuanced judgments, which is why their effectiveness cannot be complete. As a result, internet surveillance would probably lead to an abuse of control and restriction of some content, even if they are perfectly legal. Moreover, proponents of censorship can be contradictory in their philosophy. It is worth mentioning that as an opponent of censorship, I certainly do not encourage the violence and aggression that can be found online; big digital companies in particular are an arena for demonstrations of offenses, provided that they enable anyone to post their thoughts publically while hiding behind their computer.