Sedition Act outlawed criticism of the government is such a restriction ever wise?
2006-10-26 16:12:03 · 7 answers · asked by a d 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Yes. Show me one act of restriction that affected your life. Speakers at Universities who attempt to speak against the more popular positions on campus are disrupted and booed off the stage. This is at the University level which is supposed to be a place where ideas and not boorishness is promoted. It is a travesty. With rights go responsibilities.
2006-10-26 16:23:00 · answer #1 · answered by DrB 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There only two times I can recall the restriction of free speech to be justified. The first was when the Supreme Court ruled that yelling "Fire!" in a crowed theater (or other venue), when there was no fire, could be restricted to ensure the safety of the population. The second was when they ruled that slander is punishable in civil case when the slander is groundless.
All other times, the freedom of the press and the freedom of speech have never been a problem
2006-10-26 16:23:56 · answer #2 · answered by Kevin k 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Writes the Corporal: “I think that this kind of censoring is a big deal. I can understand blocking porn, music and movies, and blatantly illegal sites, but blocking sites that some higher up just doesn’t agree with is disgusting. They are blocking a huge portion of voters from information that will help them determine which side to vote for. Because of this, the only news we get is from the big corporations or conservative based sites.”
2006-10-26 16:23:21 · answer #3 · answered by Mojo Seeker Of Knowlege 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, freedom of speech should not be constrained in any way. If we initiate off doing issues like this we can finally end up going returned to what has occurred for hundreds of years, the persecution of persons for their ideals. to illustrate, the Catholic Church by no potential allowed the Protestants to criticize their faith, and seem what occurred they have been burned on the stake. motives like it rather is why we've the 1st substitute, and why we would desire to constantly by no potential enable it, or the form, to be constrained in any appreciate.
2016-12-28 06:01:24 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
THE GOVERNMENT DOES WHAT THEY WANT TO. WE MAY VOTE THEM INTO OFFICE, BUT WHO EVER IS IN OFFICE AND THE MAJORITY RULES, SO, GET A NEW PRESIDENT AND THINGS MIGHT GET BACK TO SOME KIND OF NORMALCY
2006-10-26 16:17:35 · answer #5 · answered by docie555@yahoo.com 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, never, never, never, never, never, not under any circumstances, ever.
Nor should the government get to hide behind "national security."
2006-10-26 16:14:07 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
no...then we not really being able to take advantage of our rights fully
2006-10-26 16:13:59 · answer #7 · answered by Lady blah blah 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋