Free Speech -- Freedom of Speech Essays

  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In order to find truth to anything, one must make multiple suggestions, ask many questions, and sometimes ponder the unspeakable. Without doing so, there would be no process of elimination; therefore, truth would be virtually unattainable. Now, in our attempts to either find truth, express our beliefs and opinions, or generally use the rights we are given constitutionally, we are often being criticized and even reprimanded. Our freedom to voice our opinion(s) is being challenged, as critics of free speech are taking offense to what seems like anything and everything merely controversial and arguably prejudice. As people continue to strive for a nation free of prejudice and discrimination, where everyone is equal, safe and happy, they overlook the outcome of creating such an environment. Without different beliefs, theories, opinions and controversy, we will never advance as a people. All we would be left to do is think and speak the same, and be lieve the same beliefs. Our minds will no longer be able to run wild with brilliant, and sometimes controversial, thoughts; though, even if they did, we wouldn't be able to vocalize any of it. Although it is comforting to think that there will come a time when nobody will say or do anything offensive and prejudice is diminished, the reality is that a nation without the freedom to voice anything controversial, opinionated , and even prejudice, is hardly desirable as we will be deprived of intellectual freedom and truth.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  It is easy to wonder whether there really is such a thing as free speech; better yet, complete free speech. (â€Å"Free† meaning unrestricted and without consequences) Sure, the majority of us say whatever we want, when we want, to whom we want, but there are some cases where our speech is hardly free. There has been many instances where complications and debates have risen over borderline comments, words, etc. People are being told that they have the ability to say whatever they want and believe in; however, many people are facing lawsuits and even consequences for doing so. With that said, one could wonder whether there is inadequacy in our constitution that is allowing people to be reprimanded for practicing their rights. However, it is not always citizens who are being challenged by the government for abuse of free speech. In his essay, â€Å"In Defense Of Prejudice†, Jonathan Ra... ...solution is to ask which is more important: prohibiting language that could provoke or offend people (and thus prohibit any sort of opposition) or allow people to think out of the norm and different than what is considered morally acceptable? Conforming to censorship can only lead to silencing our voices and ultimately narrow our thoughts and minds. To risk hearing powerful voices in society because of who they may offend isn't worth it. It seems that people are being offended by comments that they allow to penetrate their self esteem and self respect. Being secure enough in your personal beliefs and yourself is the best way to handle what may be considered offensive speech. Allow people to feel, think and speak differently; for there is surely a time when we have said or will say something inciting to someone, regardless of whether it was purposeful or mistaken. We cannot allow such instances to constrain our right to voice our opinions. Censoring speech may prohibit citizens fr om speaking of unacceptable and provocative issues; however, those feelings and beliefs will still linger. Although they won't be expressed verbally, they will inevitably be expressed one way or another.

Is America a Christian Nation

â€Å"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. † Thomas Jefferson wrote those words to express the emotions of a nation that desired freedom, and to shake the foundation of the British Empire. However, this simple, but eloquent phrase has sparked one of the greatest debates in American history. Is America a Christian nation? One question has divided the nation and its politicians since the founding and forming of America.This fiery debate has sparked more controversy than any other debate in modern politics. When the facts are analyzed and examined it points to the side that America was not, and is not a Christian nation. It is not a Christian nation because the Founding Father’s ideas for this country were no meant to be entangled with a national religion. There are clear and precise arguments on both s ides, but one must put aside all biases and see that America’s founders had no intention of making America into a nation that was centered on one religion.Through their own writings, letters, and actions the founders have shown that creating a government that protected the rights and liberties of the people was the primary and fundamental goal. The War for American Independence was not fought because the colonists wanted to separate from England, which already had a national religion, to create another nation based on a religion. It was fought in order to free themselves from the tyrannical monarchs that lived hundreds of miles away. In order to discover the solution to this debate the founding of this nation must be analyzed in detail.Furthermore, it is important to look at this history because this debate deals directly with the founding principles, rather than the evolution of American government. The first question that must be asked is why the founders would be opposed t o a national religion (or Christian nation) if that is what they had before. For instance, one battle cry of the revolution was, â€Å"Give me liberty, or give me death! † It was not, give me religion or give me death, so it was clear to see that the people in America were not revolting because they felt their freedom of religion was in danger. It was an important part f their history though. As a matter of fact, the fear of religious persecution was not far removed from their memories. The men that had come to America had witnessed firsthand the results of a corrupt national church. They had come from the Anglican Church, which was created solely because Henry VIII wanted to divorce his wife. Many came to the colonies of America because the corrupt church was challenging their beliefs and not allowing them to worship as they saw fit. These men and woman realized that having a national religion did not give more rights or promote religion, but simply corrupted it.The founders believed that religion should be left up to the people to carry out how they see fit, without interference from any type of government. Those who claim that America was a Christian nation often point to the phrase in the â€Å"Declaration of Independence† where Jefferson invokes the name of the â€Å"Creator. † Even though this seems like a valid point, the truth is that Jefferson and many of the other Founding Fathers were not Christians, but rather Deists. This worldview states that a higher power created the universe and all those in it, but then left it alone and does not care or pay attention to his creation.Jefferson may have been referring to god, but it was certainly not the Christian God of the Bible. Like many of the prominent statesmen of that day, Jefferson knew who he was addressing. In the colonies, the majority of people would be considered Christians. Whether or not Jefferson or the other founders believed in the Christian God, they knew they had to se cure the support of the people. People, would certainly be more likely to follow a plan to take on the greatest empire in the world if they believed their cause was supported by God.Secondly, when supporters of the Christian nation idea point to the Declaration as proof they fail to realize something. The Declaration is not law. Nothing in the Declaration legally guides the way American government or its people function. Even though it set up the foundation for this new nation, it cannot be regarded as any type of legal document that would give evidence of a Christian based nation. However, even if someone were to look at the Declaration as proof, there are more misconceptions. The idea in the Declaration of a government that derives its power from the people is adically different from the theory of divine rights that is seen in the Christian kingdoms of the past. The founder’s idea of a government by and for the people completely rejects the idea of a government where man de rives the right to maintain power from a divine being. Moreover, if the founders had wanted to remain in that type of society than they could have used much simpler terms, rather than using the confusing, vague terms such as â€Å"Creator. † Since the Declaration is not in fact a law, one must look at the actual document that guides the way American government is supposed to act, the Constitution.If the founders had intended to create a Christian nation, then it would follow that their laws would follow in that way. However, this is not the case. In reality, it could not be further from the truth. For example, in Article VI section 3 of the Constitution it states that will be no religious test for public office. If the founders intended for a national religion, then why not make influential, political figures be held to some religious standard? Once again, the evidence points to the founders trying to avoid the route of so many of the nations that came before them.In yet anot her attempt to make sure there was no national religion, the 1st Amendment to Constitution states that, â€Å"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. † Clearly, the founders knew that establishing a national religion would result in the persecution of any other religion or belief system. Also, the establishment clause has been interpreted to mean there is a wall of separation between church and state, according to the Supreme Court. Even though this â€Å"wall† is not in the Constitution, it is implied through the 1st Amendment.Finally, the laws and fundamental beliefs were based off the ideas of John Locke and Greek philosophers. The argument that states that common law and the natural rights of man came from any type of religious belief system cannot be used. Therefore, the foundation of this country was not based on Biblical (or any other religious) standards, when it came to the policies and fun ctions of the US government. If the laws and history of the founders point to a rejection of national religion, what about how they lived out these policies? What did their actions and writings say about how they intended to run America?When one looks at the founder’s polices and laws, it is obvious that they never intended for America to have an established religion. Firstly, in 1779 Thomas Jefferson presented the â€Å"Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom† to an assembly in Virginia. This statute would greatly influence the 1st Amendment in that it was concerned with the corruption of national religion and the persecution of those who think differently. â€Å"Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or [burdens] or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness. Clearly, the founders were aware of the eminent dangers that would follow creating an establishment of relig ion. Moreover, this statute was supported by James Madison, who is considered to be the author of the Constitution, and a group of Baptists that had been largely persecuted when there was an established religion. Furthermore, before the Constitution was ratified there was much debate over what type of government to have. â€Å"The Federalist Papers† were a series of essays defending the Constitution and a more powerful federal government than that of the Articles of Confederation.One of the main fears of the Federalists was the creation of factions. This meant groups, most likely political parties gaining control and causing a tyranny of the majority. Under the pseudonym â€Å"Publius† James Madison argued that even religious sects could become tyrannical when he wrote, â€Å"A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source,† Obviously, this is an argument for a Union rather than a confederacy, but it clearly shows the founders fear of a national religion.They believed, like they had seen in the past that an established religion would be nothing more than a corrupt, political faction. Moreover, the most glaring, apparent proof that the founders did not want a national religion was when they were dealing with foreign nations. After the War for American Independence, the former colonies had to deal with the Barbary pirates themselves as they no longer had protection from England or France. Therefore a treaty was signed at Tripoli, in order to ensure peace and friendship between the two battling sides.This document was signed and ratified by President John Adams and was unanimously voted through by the Senate. Article 11 of the treaty states that, â€Å"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in its elf no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the part that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. Even though this was a treaty it showed what the founders truly believed about the nation that they had created. Furthermore, according to Article VI section 2 of the Constitution all treaties made by Congress shall become the supreme law of the land. There is the idea that this article was merely added to please the Muslim nation, which is a valid point. However, because it was a treaty it became law after it was ratified by the Senate. Why would the founders make such a bold statement that would become the supreme law of the land if they did not really mean it?It is apparent that the founders were clearly stating, in this treaty, what the y had already considered to be true. The study of history is important because it allows people to learn from the mistakes and errors of those in the past. The founders were some of the most intelligent men that have ever walked this earth and were certainly scholars of history. Therefore, they saw the corruption and persecution that was brought upon by the establishments of national religions.In no way were the founders hostile towards Christianity, Judaism, Deism, or any other religious beliefs. If anything, when the arguments are analyzed the founders were trying to protect religions and peoples religious beliefs more than anything else. By not allowing the establishment of religion they ensured that, for example, Christianity would be handled by the different churches and denominations of that religion, and not by a unitary government figure.Through their actions, writings, and policies it was evidently clear that America was never meant to be a Christian nation. In order to mai ntain the principles of liberty, the founding fathers had to create a nation where religion could flourish without the flaws and corruptions that come with combining a source of power with religious belief. If they had not done this, history would have surely repeated itself and the corruption of the church and government would have been much greater.

Disorder Analysis

â€Å"Me Myself and Irene† is a movie about a Rhode Island State Police trooper named Charlie Baileygates who has a mental disorder. The disorder that can be evidently seen in the movie almost creates the whole essence of the story. Charley Baileygates' (Jim Carrey) is found to have a Dissociative Identity Disorder or more commonly known as multiple personality. In the movie, Jim Carrey's character changes from Charley to Hank, who is the other personality, that somehow is the complete opposite of Charlie.During the course of the movie, this Dissociative Identity Disorder of Charley terrorizes his condition and his interaction with other people, especially with Irene (Renà © Zellweger). As the movie assessed Charlie's condition, it showed that this disorder was caused by the anger that has been kept inside for years due to other people who took advantage of him. Raising three African-American kids that are sons of his wife and a black dwarf limo driver, who eventually stole h is bride, Charlie accepted it but has kept this unconscious anger deep inside him.This eventually led to Hank, who is the other personality inside his brain. Hank is the rude, violent and cocky persona that is completely the opposite of Charlie.DISSOCIATIVE IDENTITY DISORDERAs defined by the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), â€Å"Dissociative Identity Disorder is a psychiatric diagnosis that describes a condition in which a single person displays multiple distinct identities or personalities, each with its own pattern of perceiving and interacting with the environment.†(American Psychiatric Association, 2000).The requirements of the diagnosis suggests at least two personalities consequently gaining control with regards to a person's demeanor and actions. With regards to its possible causes, epidemiology, appearance across cultures, and existence, this disorder is controversial. Interaction of several factors are c auses that lead to Dissociative Identity Disorder. Possible symptoms that suggests a demonstration of Dissociative Identity Disorder ranges with wide variations during the course of time.Symptoms that can be included are distortion or loss of subjective time, depersonalization, depression, amnesia, headaches and other body pains. People with this condition may even suffer auditory hallucinations with regards to the two personalities' discussions and might even result to misdiagnoses that may falsely conclude a psychotic issue. People with DID often display an array of indications that can match those of other mental health disorders and many physical disorders as well. Chronic and potentially disabling or fatal, patients with Dissociative Identity Disorder are prone to harming themselves.There are various treatment methods to cure this disorder such as Psychotherapy, medications and behavioral treatments. A psychiatrist or psychologist may use specially designed interviews such as t he SCID-D and personality assessment methods to evaluate an individual with Dissociative Identity Disorder. Integrating the personalities into a single personality is the main goal of treatments. Drug therapy can alleviate some particular symptoms but does not heal the disorder itself. Psychotherapy on the other hand is emotionally painful and difficult.In general , two or more psychotherapy meetings a week for at least 3 to 6 years are essential. Helpful also may be Hypnosis.CONCLUSIONAs seen in the movie, this condition is not actually a psychotic disorder. But despite this, there is danger among people with this condition, as seen in Charlie and Frank's battles, if not properly treated. Integrating the personalities might be hard, but keeping them in tune and coexisting might help. Psychotherapy is the best option for treatment of DID.

Are Violent Video Games Bad for the Youth

In recent discussions of violent video games, a controversial issue has been whether violent video games are bad for youth or not. On one hand, some argue that video games do not affect the youth at all. On the other hand, however, others argue that violent video games affect the youth tremendously. According to media violence researcher Craig Anderson, Chair of Iowa State University’s Department of Psychology, â€Å"in a violent video game, you rehearse the entire aggression sequence from beginning to end† (Hoerrner & Hoerrner 2). According to [his] view, he is saying that â€Å"you have to be vigilant, looking for enemies, looking for potential threats; you have to decide how to deal with the threat, what weapon to use, and how to use it; and then you take physical action to behave aggressively within the game† (Hoerrner & Hoerrner 4). The issue is whether violent video games are bad for eight, nine, or even ten year olds. My own view is that violent video games are indeed bad for young children. Though I concede that whether a child’s parents choose to allow their children to play these violent games is up to them, I still maintain my view that violent games are bad. A perfect example reassuring a parent that their child is not participating in playing these violent games is to check the ratings on the video games to make sure there is no violence in them. Although it might be objected that parents do not have time to check the ratings on their kid’s games, I reply that it is, once again, an option guaranteeing their children are not being exposed to violence. All in all, the issue is important because these violent video games are affecting children’s behavior, making them more aggressive, as well as more violent. Allowing kids to play violent video games changes the way they act towards their peers by causing them to become more aggressive. They no longer seem to have compassion towards one another, but instead coldness towards each other. This was proven when the American Psychological Association concluded that â€Å"playing a lot of violent video games is related to having more aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Furthermore, playing violent games is also related to children being less willing to be caring and helpful toward their peers† (Junior Scholastic 1). Therefore, when children experience more aggression, they are going to feel that their aggressive manner is fine. This age group is not going to take a second look at their negative actions since they see it as â€Å"just fun and games† (Junior Scholastic 1). In essence, by allowing kids to play what they want and not setting boundaries for the kids, parents are not doing any justice to their offspring; instead, parents are saying that it is alright to treat others in an aggressive manner as long as it is just in fun and games. Another perfect example of how violent video games cause children to become more aggressive towards their peers would be the afterschool program I work for — LA’s Best. There I see how these games affect the kids due to how they act towards each other. They are always play-fighting with each other and having fun in their eyes, that is, until someone comes to me or my other staff members crying. When we ask them why they were play-fighting to begin with, they all have the same similar respond-‘that’s how they fight in Mortal Kombat. ’ Mortal Kombat is a popular series of fighting games that contain high levels of blood and gore. So to see our kids reenact what they see on their video games is upsetting because it shows us, the staff, that our kids version of playing together is hitting and tumbling around with each other until someone gets hurt. The eight to ten year olds no longer see playing together as participating in a friendly game of soccer, but instead, a vicious way to kick those who they despise. Therefore, by allowing our kids to involve themselves in these vicious games, changes their definition of the meaning of ‘fun’. They now see fun as hitting and kicking each other until someone is down in pain since they see this type of act of violence in their video game. Lastly, not only do kids experience aggressive behavior through video games, but also criminal violent behavior. This is due to the high rating of violence in the kid’s games. These games make it seem okay to shoot and kill people because the young children can always restart the game and play again. However, in reality, the only thing that these games do for children is actively train them to kill. Take for instance, Retired Lt. Col. Dave Grossman who â€Å"argues that children learn to use weapons and become sharp shooters through simulated games the same way soldiers use simulations to improve their shooting precision. Just as children can improve their phonics with Learn to Read with Winnie the Pooh, they can learn to shoot with deadly accuracy, playing Doom, Splinter Cell, Hitman, and other first-person shooter games† (Hoerrner & Hoerrner 2). Although many would question what Grossman is saying, it actually was proven to be accurate â€Å"in [the] 1997's high school shootings [in] Paducah, Kentucky, [when] the 14-year-old who opened fire on a before school prayer group landed eight out of eight shots on eight different targets. Five of those were headshots† (Hoerrner & Hoerrner 2). Keep in mind the â€Å"teenage shooter had never held a real gun before his shooting rampage†¦ however, spent long hours playing first-person shooter games that simulated killing with the same weapon he used that morning† (Hoerrner & Hoerrner 2). To sum it up, the violence in video games does lead to violent behavior. Video game interaction leads kids to think that using violence is acceptable, causing them to choose their fist over rationality. In conclusion, violent games do indeed lead to aggressive and violent behavior. Not only do these games cause children to be aggressive towards one another, but they also lead to the physical pain of others due to the high content of violence. This is due to children having the entire aggression sequence from beginning to end imprinted in their mind. This therefore, leads them having to seek potential threats while having to figure out which physical action will have the best outcome. This is why every parent should watch the levels of violence in video games as well as set boundaries to what their children can and cannot play.

A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, A Story of a Little Girl, Mary Frances Nolan

Betty Smith isn't well known for her many works, but the one book that almost everyone has heard about, is A Tree Grows in Brooklyn. In this novel she shows herself to be an author of great depth and knowledge; she gives us a peek into the complex human soul. This book gives great insight into life; it shows why many people strive to become someone better and how some people are able to move up to a better station in life even though there are tremendous odds and A Tree Grows in Brooklyn touches everyone's' hearts. It is about a little girl, Mary Frances Nolan (also known as Francie), growing up in the poorer part f Brooklyn with a drunken, singing waiter for a father. This father somehow always makes her feel so special and â€Å"normal†. She lives with her severely realistic mother, her father, and a brother(Neeley) who is privileged as the â€Å"favorite child†. Francie is treated poorly throughout school because she is so different and independent. Francie always kept to herself and was the silent studious type, which deepened the division between herself and the other of the At a very young age Francie learned how important money is as well as the division in society caused by money as well as education. Because of this division and Neeley's favoritism, Francie becomes the sole provider for the family after the her father's death. She goes to work straight after graduation from grade school and never gets to have the pleasure and luxury of a high school diploma, but that doesn't stop her from her dreams. Her dreams of moving up in the world, to a place were you don't have to worry about where your next meal comes from; a place where money doesn't necessarily make you rich. This may sound like a ridicules dream considering that today a high school diploma is mandatory for veryone. At this point in time; however, very few people, without wealth, were able to get a higher education or even be able to go to high school. Yet nothing can stop Francie from completing her dream. This wonderful book cuts right to the heart of life. It show the true American dream; the dream of higher education and a better and equal way of life for everyone. The novel tells this dream through one special girl who realizes that she can be and do better. If you don't read A Tree Grows in Brooklyn you will be denying yourself a rich experience of the true American dream.

Politics and the English Language Research Paper

Politics and the English Language - Research Paper Example In order to clear the point the writer Orwell has given five examples of passages. Prof Harold Laski in his Freedom of Expression has written: â€Å"I am not, indeed, sure whether it is not true to say that the Milton who once seemed not unlike a seventeenth-century Shelley had not become, out of an experience ever more bitter in each year, more alien [sic] to the founder of that Jesuit sect which nothing could induce him to tolerate.† (Orwell, 1946, p.1) Orwell observed that in the cited passage there is having five negatives in fifty three words. The superfluous words are used in the passage that has made the write up non-sense and vagueness could have been avoided. It appears that the observations of Orwell are correct and significant. The second example is from Professor Lancelot Hog Ben’s† Interglossa† which reads as: â€Å"Above all, we cannot play ducks and drakes with a native battery of idioms which prescribes egregious collocations of vocables as the Basic put up with for tolerate, or put at a loss for bewilder.† (Orwell, 1946, p.1) Orwell is not convinced in using the phrase ‘ducks and drakes’ and he does not accept the word like ‘put up’ and ‘egregious’. The third instance cited by him referred to an Essay on psychology in Politics (New York): â€Å"on the one side we have the free personality: by definition it is not neurotic, for it has neither conflict nor dream. Its desires, such as they are, are transparent, for they are just what institutional approval keeps in the forefront of consciousness;† (Orwell, 1946, p.2). Orwell finds it to be meaningless but a reader can find out the meaning what it is intended in the article. The expressions by the writer  could have been made easier and imagery had the words been replaced appropriately. The fourth one is from a communist pamphlet: ‘All the "best

Key Consumer Psychology & Buying Behavior Essay

Key Consumer Psychology & Buying Behavior - Essay Example This essay stresses that marketers view each consumer as a single decision-making unit. They collect information relating to a product or service from various sources and through various dimensions analyze it. The decision resulting from their analysis is the buying or rejection of the product. Marketers look to understand the types of stimulating information that arouses the favorable consumer action towards their product and the extent of their understanding affects their success. This process is in fact based on the underlying philosophy of â€Å"consumer sovereignty† which dictates that the consumer plays the role of the king responsible for all decisions and the activities done by the vendors should therefore be focused on satisfying these customers. This should go along with the primary business objective of making profits. This paper makes a conclusion that the process of decision making means the underlying steps the consumers experience in order to select between the different market alternatives. Alternative products include, for example, different choices to achieve the same set of goals, like whether to fly by plan, travel by train; whether to select regular briefs or boxers etc. This is mainly a five step process. Each step occurs in succession to the previous step without any gaps. These steps are briefly discussed hereunder. Depending on the circumstances the consumer may undertake a heavy research, a little search or no further research on the needs and the available products.