Role Of Public Administrators During Protecting Civil Liberties

Another area in which it is suggested that modern liberalism has departed from classical liberalism is freedom. Classical liberals believe in negative freedom. This is simply that there should be an absence of external constraints on the individual and as such they should be left alone to make their own choices. In this way classical liberals were heavily influenced by the natural rights theories of John Locke and Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson claimed that we were born with inalienable rights and therefore no individual or government had the right to take these away. Freedom from constraints is therefore an essential condition for exercising these rights. In practise, this has meant that classical liberals have advocated a minimal state or what John Locke referred to as the ‘night-watchman state’. The activities of this state should be limited to the enforcement of contracts, maintaining order and protection from foreign threats to prevent the state from infringing on individual liberties as much as possible.

“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.

Although liberals agree about the value of liberty, their views on what it means to be ‘free’ vary significantly. It was Isaiah Berlin who first created the concepts of negative and positive freedom that helped to differentiate between the two liberals’ views of freedom. The concept of negative freedom was adopted by classical liberals, who believed that freedom was defined as being left alone and free from interference. Classical liberals believed this theory to mean that individuals should be free from external restrictions or constraints. Modern liberals, on the other hand, believed in positive freedom. This, modernist’s perceived to means that all individuals have the ability to be their own master, and thus reach full autonomy. Unlike classical liberals, who had little faith in humankind, Modernists conveyed humans in a much more positive light: people are rational beings that are capable, and therefore should be able, to flourish and

Legal historian Geoffrey Stones claims that the government of the United States has in the past overreacted in times of war and crisis, and has seriously violated many civil liberties. A democracy requires high levels of civil rights, liberties, and political openness in order for its citizens to fully participate in political election, and other governmental activities; however, the demands of national security usually require much less openness, secrecy, and limitations on civil rights and liberties. Throughout history there have been times were large numbers of individuals have experienced political discrimination and have had great difficulty exercising their civil liberties. Ethnic minority groups, and immigrants have been among the most targeted by the government in times of crisis. Under conditions of war, American civil liberties and political participation are usually curtailed and violated in many ways by the government, usually with the active support of some groups and people in society. Times of national security threat are often accompanied by what historian Richard Hofstadter calls “the paranoid style in American politics.” In other words, war produces preoccupation with internal threats to national security, and some groups with in society are targeted as security ricks because of their ethnic or political belief. This paper will briefly explore different times and crisis were civil liberties have been obstructed by the government for national security

Showing that governments while insuring people’s social rights, and basic liberties should not be silencing their citizens. Since the freedom of speech is one of the many pillars holding up socialist societies.

My thoughts are mixed upon the article “Sorry, College Kids, There’s No Such Thing As Hate Speech”. My initial thought about this article is a total agreement towards it. I do agree that there's no such thing as “hate speech”. In the article, they describe some topics that affiliate with hate crime/speech. For example, the author states the ideas affiliated with abortion, transgenders, and illegal immigration. Free speech matters. Although some might have a positive outlook towards transgenders, others might have a negative outlook towards them, thoroughly getting into an argument about it. But, that's not “hate speech”, it's free speech. Freedom to speak your opinions. However,

In the article, Greenwald focuses on trying to make an argument for why free speech should be protected, even if that speech is hateful. Greenwald argues this point mainly by showing a collage of examples where hate speech infringed upon

Prior when taking the assessment of convictions, I marked the number 3 statement as “True.” Freedom is define as the state of been free, is the absence of necessity in a choice. But, it could also mean the liberation of a slavery or the restriction from power. It is a political right which has been stated in the article 19 of the Universal Declaration of the Human Rights. Every human should have the liberty on choosing their religion, political, and social beliefs which they might prefer. Furthermore, when having freedom in speech and in media it builds a pillar which has the power to create a healthy democratic society, allowing for the free flowing of the necessary ideas for innovation.

Social Media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook are allowing us to be able to communicate and share information with a click of a button. These platforms play an important “watchdog role” in our society by allowing users to speak freely to those in power and bring important issues to light, such as human rights and the corruption in the government (Mijatovic, 2014). While Facebook and Twitter believe in the importance of free speech, they also do not tolerate hate speech. Censorship on these platforms are there for a reason and that is why the debate on free speech and the information policy is such a complicated topic.

There are good things to having the freedom of speech but because of freedom of speech we take advantage of it as much as we can. Because of freedom of speech it’s common to hear hate speech. To limit freedom of speech we can avoid more hate speech. It’s better to avoid hate speech so we don’t affect a person’s mental health, be harmful and divisive to communities, or endure hatred over many years.

Freedom is a difficult doctrine that takes part in politics. Philosophy emphasized entirely determined by public, particularly in sociology and economics. Liberty can clarify the distinction between negative and positive liberty, the following part of this essay covers two issues. Meanwhile, the second purpose in this essay is to explore the implication of negative and positive freedom on the relationship between the individual and the states which will utilize different real instance in the world.

It can be concluded that, by investigating the many factors of the concept of freedom of speech, it should not be limited. Of course, it is considered that many individuals or political bodies take advantage of the constitutional law, but because of the law they are punished accordingly. If

Isaiah Berlin famously introduced two concepts of liberty – ‘negative liberty’ and ‘positive liberty’ in his Four Essays on Liberty. Berlin describes negative liberty as ‘to be free to the degree to which no human being interferes with my activity … Political liberty in this sense is simply the area within which a man can do as he wants.” In contrast, positive liberty is the ability to be in control of one’s own life, free from internal obstacles to living the way one would rationally want to. People normally believe that ‘negative liberty is a good thing’, it is a very important for the state to prevent the interferences for an individual to act. However, it may not be an entirely good thing, because ‘negative liberty’ may not be sufficient by itself.

If negative liberty is concerned with the freedom to pursue one’s interests according to one’s own free will and without “interference from external bodies,” then positive liberty takes up the “degree to which individuals or groups” are able to “act autonomously” in the first place (Berlin, 1958)

Free Speech is the privilege available to all but is also criticized if the speaker chooses to demonize a subject. This issue has left the government and public in, the ambiguity of what sanctions Free Speech Laws will able to act in without causing any illegal activity. Being frequently brought into question when there is an incision of negative response, or instilled hatred upon a specific ethnicity when spoken to an audience. If this is not kept under the legislative and the public eye, individuals will be able to go around tarnishing any other group of people with no repercussions, but if the usage of free speech has some sort of prerequisite to how it should be used there could possibly be some alleviation of hate and resentment an ethnicity has been dealt. Three of the articles I selected for this research have written distinct opinions on how free speech should be handled before it goes under criticism for possibly demeaning a community of people. Gelber and Luke the writers of “The Effects of Civil Hate Speech Laws “ideally believe in that hate speech laws ought to have more productive outcomes on the public discussion by encouraging more respectful speech. Waldron the author of “The Harm of Hate Speech” sees the public and legislative tending to misunderstand the harm hate speech and the major impacts it causes to its victims. Fiss the writer of “The Irony of Free Speech” introduces the idea that free speech can be regulated not to interact with the “general