Free Speech on the Internet
Freedom of speech has been a big issue on the Internet lately. But I'd like to suggest that, properly viewed, "policy markets" are a much bigger free speech issue than the recent ban on "indecent" internet posts.
First, let's start with the puzzle "why free speech?". What is the fundamental difference between a legislature forbidding some people from making "indecent" speech at the request of others who fear being offended by such speech, and a legislature taxing some people to pay for other people's education or recreation? In each case interests are opposed, there are political winners and losers, and a majority may trample on some "rights" of a minority. Why should one case be forbidden and the other allowed?
The strongest widely-accepted argument for having courts strike down laws which limit "free speech" is to protect communications intended to influence the political process. You see, even if a large majority preferred to ban indecent speech, or to fund education with taxes, they might never find out that they all preferred this outcome if they were prevented from publicly discussing the issue. Instead, a government might lock in its current advantage and preferences by forbidding any questioning of its current laws. Without free political speech, a minority might much more easily trample on a majority (a worse fate than a majority trampling a minority). Thus political speech deserves extra protection.
Note, however, that this argument for political "speech" applies to any action whose main consequence is to communicate information to influence the political process (and whose other consequences are not overly burdensome to others). So not only should it apply to newspapers, TV, the internet, T-shirts, bumper-stickers, and window signs, but it should also apply to political demonstrations and other expensive political "signals".
You see, the main information communicated by a political demonstration is not the words chanted or held high on posters, but that fact that these people care enough to spend their time demonstrating for this cause. (Thus it is important to demonstrate in clear public view, and to not look like you're having too much fun.) Expensive signals like demonstrations can communicate what mere words cannot - strength of feeling and opinion. (Sure you can say you really care, but everyone says that.)
Unfortunately, many expensive political signals, such as campaign contributions and political advertizing, are widely limited by law. Perhaps such limits can be justified by arguing that these actions can also do much harm, in addition to communicating information to politicians and voters.
Biosynthesis of the pigment is a bifurcated process, formed from a mono and bipyrrole. These two precursors are synthesied independently and then constructed to produce Prodigiosin (Giri et al, 2004).
William I, better known as William the Conqueror, began his medieval and political career at a young age when his father left him to go on a crusade. Effectively William became the Duke of Normandy. He had to fight against other members of the Norman royalty who desired William's land and treasure. William learned at an early age that the men who ruled Europe during the middle ages were primarily interested in their own greed at the expense of all else, including the concepts chivalry and honor. He soon became a feared military commander, conquering all in Normandy who would oppose his interests. Also an excellent statesman, William planed a visit across the channel to England, so that he might meet with the elderly King Edward the Confessor, who had no obvious successors to his throne. It is hard to say what actually transpired during that meeting, due to a lack of historical records. However, what we do know comes down to us from the magnificent Bayeux tapestry. Believed to have been commissioned by Bishop Odo of Bayeux, it is in fact not a tapestry at all, but a long (230 feet long, 20 inches wide) embroidery. The Bayeaux tapestry is a pictorial history of the events leading up to and including William's victory at the battle of Hastings in 1066. At any rate the tapestry tells us that William was given the consent of Edward the Confessor, King of England, to rule the country after Edward's death. Furthermore, the tapestry also shows scenes of the Earl of Wessex Harold, swearing, on relics, before William, that he would not take the throne of England. Edward died and Harold took the throne, in spite of any prior arrangement with William of Normandy. William, gathered his armies and set...
Edkins, Jenny, and Maja Zehfuss. Global Politics: A New Introduction. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2009. Print.
In medieval Europe there were many different weapons and types of fighting. It depended on the time period they fought in. “A soldier's choice of armor depended on the time during which he lived, the type of fighting he did and his economic situation” (Blackwell 1). Some types of fighting were hand-to-hand, which were swords, axes, and many more. Another type would be projectiles, like crossbows, javelins. The last one would be firearms which guns and others. “Many medieval soldiers wore armor to protect themselves from the weapons of their enemies” (Blackwell 2). Siege weapons such as catapults helped armies break into castles and towns. Most soldiers carried some blades in addition to their swords. “A dagger had a hilt like sword and a double-edged blade that was typically between 6 and 12 inches long” (Blackwell 1). Medieval soldiers used many weapons for hand-to-hand combat. All knights carried a sword with them and were expected to be skilled at swordplay. If you could afford swords then there was always something cheaper like the Quarterstaffs, which are long...
William the conquer was the illegitimate child of the mighty Robert I, Duke of Normandy. He Became the Duke when his Father became ill and died returning from a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. He was only 8 when this happened thus becoming the Duke of Normandy. He was exposed to violence and disorder due to the new threat of Lords trying to take over his reign. This is stated in source 3 when
According to Roger Rosenblatt “since free is the way people's minds were made to be”, freedom of speech is important to speak one's mind in a way that expresses his/her opinion even if this opinion does not seem to convince others. In my opinion, without freedom of speech, the United States would have failed to be such a powerful country as it is today.
William I was put into the spotlight from a very early age. He became the Duke of Normandy at the ripe age of eight years old, and pandemonium ensued almost immediately. Throughout his early years of power, a “breakout of authority” occurred all throughout Normandy, leading to many future problems that William would handily deal with (William I 2). Although he had many people seeking to overthrow him, William had support on his side, and was able to use the adversity he faced to his advantage. At a very young age, William was learning the tricks of the trade, and became very logical and rational in making decisions whether they be military or political based. Without his troubled upbringing, it is questionable whether or not he would have been as great of a leader as he turned out to be.
On December 15, 1791, Congress adopted the freedom of speech as a constitutional right under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as a law to protect all American citizens. The law clearly states 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” (www.law.cornell.edu). Although this law is in effect, there are exceptions to policy and many other categories that are excluded from the freedom, in which the government may enact within a reasonable amount of time, place or manner restrictions on speech. According to the famous speech written by Raphael Cohen-Almagor, it states that freedom of speech is a guiding rule, one of the foundations of democracy, but at the same time, freedom does not imply anarchy, and the right to exercise free expression does not include the right to do unjustified harm to others.
He was the son of Robert, Duke of Normandy, his mother, Herleva, the daughter of a tanner of Falaise. In 1035 William’s father Robert, Duke of Normandy, went on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, in which he died. Before starting the pilgrimage, he presented to the nobles his seven year old child demanding their allegiance. "He is little", the father said, "but he will grow, and, if God please, he will mend." William, after a period of anarchy, became the ruler of Normandy in his father's place at the age of nine. William had a youth of clean life and of much natural piety, while the years of storm and stress through which he passed gave him an endurance of character which lasted to his life's end. During the time of anarchy in Normandy he became a skilled military leader and defeated his enemies, uniting his duchy. Once he began fighting, rumor has it that he never lost a battle.
In conclusion, Realism is able to explain the outcomes, actual and hypothetical, of NK policies, since its common assumption matches the centrality of the nuclear issue to the agenda of the country. In addition to that, Neoclassical Realism also provides a valuable explanation for some of the nation more relevant foreign policy patterns of behavior.
Schmidt, B. C. (2007). Realism and facets of power in international relations. In F. Berenskoetter & M. J. D. Williams (Eds.), Power in world politics (pp. 43-63). London: Routledge.
To understand the international relations of contemporary society and how and why historically states has acted in such a way in regarding international relations, the scholars developed numerous theories. Among these numerous theories, the two theories that are considered as mainstream are liberalism and realism because the most actors in stage of international relations are favouring either theories as a framework and these theories explains why the most actors are taking such actions regarding foreign politics. The realism was theorized in earlier writings by numerous historical figures, however it didn't become main approach to understand international relations until it replaced idealist approach following the Great Debate and the outbreak of Second World War. Not all realists agrees on the issues and ways to interpret international relations and realism is divided into several types. As realism became the dominant theory, idealistic approach to understand international relations quickly sparked out with failure of the League of Nation, however idealism helped draw another theory to understand international relations. The liberalism is the historical alternative to the realism and like realism, liberalism has numerous branches of thoughts such as neo-liberalism and institutional liberalism. This essay will compare and contrast the two major international relations theories known as realism and liberalism and its branches of thoughts and argue in favour for one of the two theories.
There cannot be too much free speech, the more the better. Everyone everywhere should always have the right to say whatever they want. People should also be allowed to argue with people whose opinions the dislike. People can stop talking to someone who they consider offensive, they can walk away. Words don’t hurt people, despite the current popular opinion. Free speech should not be limited by anything it should just be free. Some people will say horrible things, but when they say such things to other people, people will think that they are horrible, and not listen to them anymore. Laws against saying certain thing don’t protect anyone, all they do is hide the true nature of people, until it is too late to do
People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.
Weber, Smith, Allan, Collins, Morgan and Entshami.2002. Foreign Policy in a transformed world. United Kingdom: Pearson Education Limited.