A) There are some forms of freedoms of speech that stretch the limit on what is too far. However, I don't think this should be confused with political correctness. Political correctness is more of an attempt to make certain things publicly acceptable to say. Such things that fall into the idea of "political correctness" is saying that a man shouldn't call a women certain terms due to it being degrading to women, or not calling different races different identification terms, such as not calling a person "Black," but instead "African American." While I think that there is some basis to political correctness, there is taking it too far in an attempt to censor the freedom of speech.
However, I think that any form of speech that limits or takes away another person's rights is going too far. For example, if a person threatens bodily harm against someone, that can be interpreted as a form of attempting to take away someone's civil rights. It depends, but I do think that any word that comes out of a person mouth or is written to forcefully take away another person's civil rights should not be protected.
2. Freedom of Religion: Is separation of church and state necessary? Why or why not?
A) Yes, I think that there is a time and place for religious matters and political matters. I do think, as a Christian myself, that there should be freedom to express those religions even in political matters as long as it doesn't take away another person's civil rights. For example, if I say a prayer at a lunch meeting with my coworkers as long as it doesn't interfere with their meeting or civil rights, then I find nothing wrong with my actions. Or if a person asks not do or eat something for religious preferences, they should be legally allowed within the limits that it isn't forcing others to adhere to the same ideals. Keep in mind the strictness I use the term "force" here because this has been an issue that has been strongly debated on when the freedom of religion is challenged in judicial interpretations.
3. Criminal Procedure: Are defendant's rights crucial to our system of government? Why or why not? Many argue that defendants have too many rights - do you agree? Why or why not?
A)Yes, they are because if defendants didn't have the rights they had such as the need for a warrant, freedom to plead the fifth, and so on then our judicial and legal system would be corrupt. People would be forced to speak in interrogations regardless of their civil rights. They could be charged of crimes that they weren't even aware they'd been accused of, and the police could seize and raid any property of the defendant. The rights to defendants are very important to keep the American public, both innocent and guilty equally safe and fairly treated in the judicial system.
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/222/965/lib.jpg
Bloggers I Commented on: Katelyn Dozier, Donna Fox, and Matthew Cooper
I agree with all of your points. Freedom of speech is our right, but we cannot take away the rights of others with it. Separation of church is necessary, and there is a time and place for religion and it should not be discouraged. The rights of defendants is necessary. there are corrupt people in our legal system that would gladly convict someone unfairly.
ReplyDeleteI agree that defendants rights are important like you said without them, police wouldn't need search warrants and we would be forced to speak to anyone about anything. I also agree that separation of state and church is necessary.
ReplyDelete