The freedoms awarded by the governments to its citizens are fundamental and they form the limits to which activities and liberties are allowed. The controversy to whom the right or is the discretion of the kind of music to be listened to in a country that considers itself a much liberal one and holds pride in herself on the freedom of choice for all.
Leete`s proposition of whom should be vested the rights to decide what kind of music we listen to and it is up to that limit every other persons rights is not infringed. This is to that limit morals are upheld and obscenity not entertained to juveniles. I totally agree to the fact that the censorship of music aimed at limiting children to what kind they listen to and is aided by parental advisory warning offered to the parents for the kids. Also, the government censors the music it considers downplays the morality of the nation and infringes the rights and freedoms of other citizens. The need to balance the people’s individual rights together with the well-being of society as a whole is to be met through laws that are implemented and yet do not infringe on the personal rights and freedoms of the citizens(Fahnestock, & Secor, 2004).
On the music`s cover a warning label that indicates the level of explicit content aired need to be placed and on products such as compact discs and videos, in particularly those that are explicit and have inappropriate language or scenes that depict the obscene pictures or languages that is of adult content. Manufacturers can classify music products for various age groups to protect young children from a world they do not understand.
Our writers will create one from scratch for
Martin Luther had a way of expressing his views that culminated into reforms and revolutions for instance; the separation of the Catholic Church. He created a massive movement from his insightful words and the points which he raised brought about the diversity in the numerous denominations that are present today. In a twist of events in recent times, such pro activists would have been barred from the supposedly decent individuals of the society.
In the bid to promote the bill of rights, the police arrest any citizen in the streets for whatever demonstrative cause that led them and this is ironic as it is a suppression of freedom of speech (Fahnestock, & Secor, 2004).
His shift in tone is to depict a conflict in interest of judgment of the same beneficiary of activism and freedoms granted the self-same way. The method law enforcement agencies quell street demonstrations is a clear shift interest in which also the degree of to which human rights have been undermined. For instance, the sport stadium in which the protest is waged being a public facility constructed through your patriotism illustrated through tax payments is where the police haul every one out of them to scamper to safety while demanding what`s rightfully theirs.
The rights of the oppressed are to be infringed as they seek a listening ear of the public and yet they get banished and their story swept under the carpet since the interest of a few is to be protected. The support of the public will surely be seen as a construed one when public sets its focus on supporting government officials against positive development and the protestors who are against making the world a global village.
It is in contrast that the government fights that which brought the ease of expression in every sense and undermines that right which is lawfully for the citizens in a bid to protect the few of the elite class in the country.
Of the population that claims to be citizens of a country they luv, no more than 58% named at least one freedom enshrined in the constitution. This was the population that mentioned the freedom of speech. Then, the other following responses dropped way off and the freedom of religion was mentioned by 18%. It was followed by the mentioning of the freedom of the press by 14%and the right of assembly by 10% and the most notable one that failed to be mentioned by a larger population interviewed was the right to petition the government (Fahnestock, & Secor, 2004).
In contradiction to the activists drive to seek more freedom, about 49% of those citizens surveyed said they are given too much freedom by the 1st Amendment. More than 40% said that newspapers should be denied the freedom of criticizing the United States military’s performances and strategies.
A large portion of the citizens claimed the aggressiveness of the media in acquiring the information on war on terrorism. They suggested the limiting of criticism by the academic profession on the criticism of the government military policy. Instead of enabling an environment that has exclusive freedoms, others consider the need to infringe the rights of a particular group as the religious groups in the country in the interest of national security. In particular, the Muslim group is to be monitored more than any other religious group. This is in contradiction to the basic exclusive right to worship in a country boasting of ultimate freedom to its citizens (Fahnestock, & Secor, 2004).
His pace in delivery of the statistics shows equal prove and his audience equally approves of his researched evidence. This fast paced delivery of statistics is a method or an effective way of denying the audience that room of suspicion or discrediting of facts that seem less satisfactory.
Families need the sustenance of an affectionate, caring and accountable household to aid them mature into self-assured grown-ups who readily and willingly giveback to the public society. Individuals are expected to have the correct attitude towards taking care of their kids minus the intervention of civic authority entities like child support but only in the case their child’s natural life is in danger (Fahnestock and Secor, 2004, p. 525). Fathers and mothers have the liberty to stake their traditional morals and other global opinions together with the kids while reassuring them to clasp the beliefs and origin. The confidentiality is significant for both the children and parents; though, ones folks might access their kid’s private space if they be certain they are obligated to ensure nothing wrong happens (Fahnestock and Secor, 2004, 525).
I propose to equal measure John Yahner`s view on parental rights and responsibilities to the protection of children and limit to explicit exposure. This extensive liberal view on stringent rules imposition and care to children should not exceed to the extent a child`s freedom is undermined. Parents are a key figure in guidance of the kids and role models in the society.
Kid’s folks possess the right to pick on what basic needs they give their kids (Fahnestock and Secor, 2004, p. 525). On the other hand, kids own rights to the necessities for parents to make their choices for them pending them attaining an old and adequate age to make their own choices. Notably the parents need to give their kids the liberty to discover their domains and talents aiding them be sovereign but taking control of them when it’s indispensible. Conferring to Fahnestock and Secor, (2004) there is a selfsame streaking between expressing considerably a lot of info and not revealing them in the confidence that their folks will guard them from destruction.
In a nation where the president needs to draw the attention to the authoritarian rules outside the United States, we are reminded of the suffering citizens out there who enjoy no right that is fundamentally theirs, no freedom of speech, no freedom of religion, no freedom of assembly. On the other hand the lack of guarantees of judicial due process, jury trials, and protection of themselves against self-incrimination are used when the American secretaries are highlighting the abusive judicial systems (Fahnestock, & Secor, 2004).
Arguments over the Bill of Rights ensued and were at times bitter in nature, from the start on whether the individual rights of citizens should be protected by the of federal government. Contrary to what the framers had in the primary document to be added to the Constitution was a list of natural rights, resulting to the principal of many of the state constitutions, but then afterwards decided against it. The initial documents sent for ratification in the year 1787 in the states included minimal discussion on the subject (Fahnestock, & Secor, 2004).
Laws are in a sense considered arguments since the freedoms of a particular individual group would in-turn limit the rights of other fellow citizens. As the rights of Muslims granted in the United States would be limited to some degree in cases of terrorism as the Americans have dreaded attacks since the Sept. 11th terrorists attack.
It was argued by some that the bill of rights wouldn`t guarantee freedoms but restrict the freedoms sought instead. Also, a list of drafted rights would simply mean that the freedoms were granted by the central government rather than natural in a sense. While striving to attain guarantees of freedom of press, speech, religion, and so forth the implication would simply be that the only freedoms permitted were the only freedoms to which citizens were entitled. Whilst the others said that since the protections belonged in the state constitution, the federal government could never be in a position to interfere with the personal rights. Those protections were arguments embedded in state`s constitution and that the Constitution should say nothing about them.
Fahnestock, J., & Secor, M. (2004). A rhetoric of argument: A text and reader. Boston: McGraw-Hill.