Pre Nazi Holocaust And The Civil War

Within a society that is reliant on the internet as a means of connectedness to one another, there will be drawbacks. The fate of this society is how people grasp this concept of unlimited compatibility and get around the drawbacks. Within the internet and all the ideas and saying that are flooded into the streams of computer-human interactions there will always be room for backlash and critique. In the article “The Culture of Shut Up” Jon Lovett produces his ideas on how society needs to get a grip on the endless amount of connectedness that spawns from the internet and how people must deal with the fact of how unreserved it is. When someone says something, a person doesn’t agree with, Lovett states that you cannot just tell them to “shut up” because they won’t shut up, they don’t have to and they never will. “You don’t beat someone’s idea by beating the thinker. You beat their idea with an idea. The fact of the matter is that society must use the connectedness offered by the modern age of technology to their advantage rather than be set off track by some drawbacks that come with it.

In Esther Dyson’s “Cyberspace: If You Don’t Love It, Leave It”, the existence of the internet is seen as potentially dangerous to today’s society. Dyson insists that the internet was once a sanctuary for tech savvy individuals such as gamers and professionals like engineers. The author focuses on the negative websites and communities that are often found offensive to the majority. She thinks the World Wide Web harbors a lot of power. This power can be accessed and conquered easily by most of the population. According to Dyson, responsibility is the key to changing the future (295). Her argument is convincing but slightly unrealistic. The internet seems to be growing into a whole other alternate universe. Society’s rapidly growing technology industry will only be harder to regulate. Most people will do what they want, when they want especially when it comes to the internet.

On the issue of whether or not schools should be allowed to limit students’ online speech, I firmly believe that they shouldn’t. Doing so directly infringes upon the student’s first amendment rights to the freedom of speech, and for what? Numerous surveys have shown that cyberbullying isn’t a huge problem. Further, one document affirms the conclusion that cyberbullying is just another phase in the long-running evolution of bullying. With this essay, I aim to convince you that schools should not limit their students’ online speech, using my vast knowledge as well as cold hard facts.

By limiting online speech, schools will be able to create an amiable atmosphere and keep students focused on school work. Confining speech will also legally protect students' and teachers civil rights to prevent violation of the Fourth Amendment. Lastly, schools should restrict online speech to avert emotional agony in teachers and students and even prevent causalities such as suicides caused by cyberbullying. With increasing technology, it's crucial to develop school policies limiting online speech to keep students focused on their future without the anxiety and fear of being

In countries such as France and Israel, Nazi hate speech has been perceived as a threat to public order and is now banned. To many Americans in the United States, this has been seen as un-democratic or un-American. Is it time to follow the ways of other countries and stop allowing Neo- Nazis the right of free speech? In the article, “Should Neo-Nazis Be Allowed Free Speech?” by Thane Rosenbaum, he argues that mutual respect and civility helps keep the peace and avoids unnecessary mental trauma. Free speech should not stand in the way of common decency and other rights. I believe the authors’ argument is persuasive and is effective for its purpose. Rosenbaum builds a strong argument by giving appeals of emotion, credibility, and also gives a rhetorical analogy towards the end of his essay.

Within the decades that proceeded before the Civil War had taken place, Americans witnessed an abundance of trial, error, and triumph during their attempt to revise the American society. Some of the main focal points of the remaking of our society would have been the Market Revolution, Urbanization, Abolition, States Rights and Westward Expansion. Without these contributing factors, our society may not have excelled in the ways that it did prior to the Civil War. ("The Pre-Civil War Era (1815–1850)." SparkNotes. SparkNotes, n.d. Web. 13 Dec. 2015.)

As tumultuous as the United States was during the Civil War, the period of reconstruction was filled with a similar sense of uncertainty; the Confederate states had to be assimilated back into the Union but there were many conflicting views on how this should be done. While the Thirteenth Amendment had already emancipated the Africans living in the Southern territories, it did not guarantee them equal treatment. Still up for debate was whether Africans would be given the equal protection under the law, citizen status, and the right to vote. While the South had been defeated militarily, it still fought to preserve its way of life through politics, and much of the political debates during the Reconstruction period would define the futures of the African-Americans.

The freedom of speech is a part of the bill of rights-obviously important enough to be one of the first things mentioned. Just as it was important in 1771, our freedoms are well established today in 2015. Here in the age of technology, the internet is where the crime takes place and all could be victims. The founding fathers didn’t write the bill of rights concerned with our Facebook rants and who they can be directed to. So finding a solution to fit a 1771 document in today’s problems can be difficult.

Following World War I, America turned inward and began to focus on itself. Yet, coming home from war Americans were also fearful of communism due to the recent Bolshevik Revolution where Lenin and the Bolshevik party gained control of Russia and made it communist. This scare led to drastic changes within our nation’s borders as America fought to keep communist influence out of its borders. This was such an impactful event that even the Attorney General of the time, A. Mitchell Palmer, set up a section in the Justice Department to handle issues relating to radicals, this sect of the Justice Department would be very active as, “More than ten thousand people were arrested—some for membership in Communist or left-wing groups, others on no greater pretext than that they looked or sounded foreign—and then jailed and interrogated with little regard for their right to due process” (Lehman, Phelps 260). This severe response to the scare of Communism demonstrates an inward focusing of America. Similarly, in the post-World War I time period America would demonstrate its interest in nativism which it would demonstrate through multiple acts being passed on immigration primarily, the Immigration Act of 1924. During this period of nativism, “Through the whole movement, from 1921 on, for more drastic curbs on the new immigration ran an increasingly assertive racial nativism” (Higham 313). That is America had

Post-Civil War, the American people began to focus their energies on settling the West. Encouraged by the government, which had passed “a series of laws dating to 1796 designed to facilitate the transfer of land from the public domain to private ownership”, many common people attempted to make a new start, picking everything up and moving out west–and I numbered among them (Brands 216). For us, the most useful of those laws was likely the Homestead Act of 1862. It promised “free land to ordinary people”, as long as we lived on the land for five years (Brands 215-216). Of course, the number of people who actually did this was low; many faked it, “erecting a flimsy structure, summoning a witness who then swore to the federal land agent that an

Despite its tragic circumstances and appalling costs, wars have pushed forward the development of tools and knowledge. Genghis Khan and the Mongols introduced hamburger; the Civil War gave rise to standardized clothing sizes and canned food; World War I produced air traffic control and hydrophones (Carnivores; Top 10 Civil War 3, 5; Scully). As it was during the earlier wars, motivation to innovate and invent was strong during World War II. Shortages, rationing and doing without at home meant military personnel had a little more support and protection, and supplying materials and money for war production meant civilian resources were scarce. World War II met the challenge with many improvements and inventions that transitioned into

During the Holocaust about 5,900,000 Jews were killed which is 63% of the Jews in Europe at the time (Holocaust Statistics). This statement easily shows that evil can be very strong however just like Hitler it will not last forever. There were many factors that lead this great evil to come to power and many things working against it.

Eissens, Ronald. "Hate Speech on the Internet Should Be Regulated." Civil Liberties, edited by Roman Espino, Greenhaven Press, 2009. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, ezproxy.aclin.org: Originally published in Hate on the Net: Virtual Nursery for In Real Life Crime, International Network Against Cyber Hate (INACH), 2004.

I agree with Bennett’s argument, people all across the country people are being publicly humiliated by people on the internet. Bennett also stated, “studies show that the anonymity of the Net encourages people to say things they normally wouldn’t.” We need more regulations on the internet, so people can not shame other people.

Moreover, you need to consider when posting online, that there are other rights that we all have. According to the article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, all of us have the right to freedom of opinion and expression, including the right to impart information and ideas through any media, what it means that internet is included. The right to freedom of expression is in the article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights too. However, if you have a right, you have a duty. The right is not absolute. This freedom carries with it duties and responsibilities, so it has restrictions prescribed by law which are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or