Internet censorship

Free speech with restrictions As a young child, we have all learned about our God given rights. We were taught to memorize our amendments and to know the meaning behind them. It is something we have been taught to not let anyone get in the way of. But lately in the news and media there have been some instances that have put all that in jeopardy for us Americans. There are people making bad decisions when showing others their opinions on campuses.In the article Hate speech vs Free speech:Where is

Free speech has been an issue that the public has been struggling with. From as broadly as online platforms to as specific as public school campuses, there has always been an issue about the right of free speech. It has the capabilities of influencing the people's’ control of language and thought. In the eyes of people in power, free speech has evolved into a matter of comforting the masses. Free speech is directly being targeted at a publicly funded school campus. A publicly funded school campus

‘No-Platforming’ is at the center of free speech censorship. The act itself is a restrictive measure, designed with the intention of preventing individuals with viewpoints deemed to be harmful or offensive from receiving a platform to spread their ideals. This has come with pushback however, as those in opposition have stated that platformer-hopefuls should be given the opportunity to share their experiences, thus equating the denial of a platform in a violation of their freedom of speech. Those

The censorship of particular ideas and speakers has become progressively common on university campuses. No-platforming, according to Chi Chi Shi, is a strategy that asserts a person or organization should not be given a platform to speak with a social space.1 While many students believe that no platforming is an intervention to deny speakers from spreading hateful views and keep their statements from being validated, others argue that no platforming encourages extremist protests and fails to differentiate

Do your ideas deserve to be heard? If you answered yes, like most people, the question then becomes who should allow or disallow you to spread these ideas? This is essentially the controversy surrounding a hot topic known as no platforming. No platforming refers a speaker not being granted a platform, by a certain group or person, in order to voice their opinion. People against no platforming argue that no platforming is not a legitimate tool of activism and that it is imperative we give everyone

topics that relate to the student body. In college, students often write for the school paper with hope of one day becoming a journalist or paid blogger. By the time a student journalist enters college they have most likely experienced some type of censorship. I believe that Student journalist should have all the same rights as a paid journalist has and not be censored on what they can and should not say. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution gives everyone the right to freedom of speech

author Mette Newth, forms of censorship can be traced back to as early as 399 BC when officials “sentenced” Socrates “to drink poison” as a punishment “for his corruption of youth and his acknowledgement of unorthodox divinities.” From this point, Newth goes on to note that uncensored free speech “was a challenge” for early religious figures. As the leaders watched seemingly dangerous ideas pour into their once pure world through literature and verbal stories, “censorship became more rigid, and punishment

topics should just refrain from reading or seeing these pieces of art. Banning books and censoring art for the offended prevents the millions of others who find interest and enjoy offensive related topics in art and writing. An extreme example of censorship was the ritual destruction, book burning, under the Nazi regime on May 10, 1993 (“Book”). Book burning was university students burning 25,000 volumes of “un-German” books to try and “purify” Germany (“Book”). This example is one of the most famous

Free speech has become a topic of large debate across the United States. Due to opposing views between people, the idea of censorship and political correctness has circulated and gained support. In fact, 40% of Millennials believe the government should censor offensive comments, remarks, speeches, etc. Prevalent on college campuses, “safe space” zones have erected for those such students who feel targeted or offended by remarks. Over the last few months, riots have erupted at the University of California

Free speech is the fundamental right, almost assumed as a divine ordinance on humans. Preliminary development of free speech starts at universities. Though considered an integral part of academic institutions and student intellectual growth, in the recent past there is growing intolerance for free speech ‘opinions’ expressed through different mediums. This paper compares two texts, “Free speech is flunking out on college campuses” by Catherine Rampell, and “Restoring free speech on campus” by Geoffrey