Enemy Of The System

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear” (George Orwell). Whether the opinion is of extreme offense or not, censorship is not the answer nor is the limitation of the freedom of speech. Emerging the truth, can only be possible through the opposition of ideas, thus with no boundries, the full protection of freedom of speech is a necessary quality of any society.

This year’s election alone has brought about many emotions and deep rooted feelings that have not come out in years. Hate speech and actions carried out because of hate speech has cause a deep division in American culture. Groups like “Black Lives Matter”, “All Lives Matter”, and “Alt-Right” are all under fire for things that have been said or done in the names of these groups. There has been terrorist attacks in the names of religious groups whom believe that a newspaper or group has insulted their religion, beliefs, and gods. Not to mention our own President Elect of the United States, Donald Trump, has been accused of fueling much of the hate speech we see today. This begs the question, should freedom of speech have any restrictions or be limited in any way, or is that unconstitutional? To look at this we must first identify what “Freedom of Speech” is as defined in the constitution and how it relates to current issues in the world and in America, then I will talk about some situations where regulation is already put in place in America, lastly we will look at some situations where I believe freedom of speech could use some clarification or restriction.

America’s first president George Washington once argued at the [whenever he said this] that “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” It is an essential component to the daily life of any constitutional republic, such as that of the United States even though it is a right granted to all American citizens, in the past, freedom of speech has been abridged to accommodate political correctness, to prevent disruptive behavior that could negatively affect others, and to protect confidential military information.

Free speech is by far the most commonly recognized freedom in our everyday lives. The freedom of speech allows us to voice our own opinions without the severe repercussions of some countries. It allows us to say what we really feel and helps us learn how to communicate in true and meaningful ways. Along with this freedom, we must remember that there are limits to this freedom. While being arrested “you have the right to remain silent” and anything you say can be used against you in court. This freedom is not one to be taken for

George Orwell once famously said ‘If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.' This sentence sums up the very essence of free speech; it is, as Orwell believed, the mother of all civil rights. Without the unconditional freedom to offend it cannot exist. Ideas are, more often than not, dangerous things. There is little point in having freedom of speech if it only defends the most popular and innocuous of opinions. The freedom to offend can perpetrate racial, social or religious intolerance; however, conversely, it is also the only means available to fight against such bigotry. Free speech is not something to work towards when the world is ‘better'; it is, rather, the vital tool through

According to the “Derechos, Human Rights”, freedom of speech is one of the most dangerous rights, because it means the freedom

Free speech is the backbone that holds democracy together.  Without a free speech, ideas would not be challenged, governments would not be kept in check, and citizens would not be free.  John Stuart Mill said once that, “If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person then he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”( Roleff, 21). The right to free speech is essential to “egalitarian democracy,”(Tsesis) however, this right is not absolute and must be limited in certain situations.

January 27 - Anonymous releases a second video message on YouTube titled “Call to Action” calling for worldwide protests outside of Scientology centers on February 10, 2008. (Luminant Films, 2012).

With freedom of speech can come violence, a common reason for nations and governments to deny this right. Some societies, such as Singapore, agree that by enforcing certain laws that abide the government keep said nation “orderly and relatively crime-free” (Reyes, par. 3). Freedom of speech can also mean

Throughout history, and particularly throughout the 20th century, the ability for individuals to live and think freely has been challenged. Totalitarianism in its many forms has been rife in various governments, disallowing the freedom of speech that would enable those under these oppressive governments to speak out. Wars going on all around the world and involving many big players made it that much more imperative for these governments to limit dissent in each of their countries, as widespread dissent would reduce public support, or the perception of public support, for the war and thus weaken the nations’ war efforts. Despite the attempts by oppressive governments to repress the voices of dissenters, which have included strict speech and

Adam Segal’s “The Hacked World Order” reveals many prevalent issues in today’s technologically centered society. Starting at Year Zero, June 2012 to June 2013, the battle over cyberspace witnessed world-changing cyberattacks. This was accomplished due to the fact that nearly 75% of the world’s population has easy access to a mobile phone, and the Internet connects nearly 40% of the total human population, which is nearly 2.7 billion people. With that being said, cyberattacks are becoming a more realistic form of terror.

Though the First Amendment protects the freedom of expression [1], not all speech is protected by law.  What if material on the Internet advocates illegal conduct or issues threats of violence?  What if information such as bomb-making instructions helps someone carry out a threat of violence?  As stated in the preceding scenario-report, the controversial website Anarchist Fever inspired amateur anarchist Paul Berkowicz, to build a bomb (with instructions found on the internet) and blow up a federal courthouse.  Obviously, he will be punished for his actions, but the issue now is what will become of the websites that helped him etch his name in infamy?  What can be done about digital conspirators who hide behind free expression?  Often, there can be no direct link established between such websites and physical crimes they inspire.  When deciding about these gray areas of free speech on the internet, we must consider issues such as regulation of the Internet, the extent of free speech, and established legal precedent.  These are the real factors that determine whether or not content of the Internet is objectionable enough to be censored or even criminally punished.

This paper will contain information on two theories based on criminology. It will contain the differences between Cyber Crime and Terrorism and how both of them are different and what types of crimes are committed with each one. It will also discuss the types of Terrorism and the types of Cyber Crimes. Comparisons between Terrorism and Cyber Crime will also be mentioned, Definitions will be included coming from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and The Department of Homeland Security. Two Crimes with Terrorism will be discussed including the 9/11 World Trade Center Attack that took place on September 11th, 2001 and resulted in thousands of people losing their lives due to the acts of a terrorist group known as Al-Qaeda. The second crime that will be discussed is the New York City Terror Attack that took place on October 31st, 2017. This attack was a heinous act by the terrorist group ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq) or otherwise known, as ISIS. The acts that took place in both of these events will be shared, as well as two cyber-crimes that have taken place.

The film Killswitch was about the government trying to monopolize and control user traffic on the internet. Whether it is for security purposes or financial gain, our system of democracy is being compromised at a technological level. Several speakers including Tim Wu, expressed how “hacktivism” was a revolutionary tool used to take a stand against government interference.

On this world today free speech has been a standout amongst the most battled after rights in the United Conditions of America. The right to speak freely was received on December 15, 1791. The right to speak freely is secured by the main correction in the Constitution of United States, which is the privilege to explain one’s suppositions and thoughts without dread of government countering or control, or societal endorse. Free discourse is imperative in the public arena since we are allowed to create as individuals and end up noticeably mindful of what is happening around us. The right to speak freely played an extremely vital part in how and our identity today and is the principle motivation behind why we