...Michael Thomas Soc: 318 Afghanistan: Drug Addicted Children February 15, 2014 Opium the cost of war; I only have questions as I watch this film. Afghanistan is a country lead by traditional culture where drugs were always thought to be evil. This film leaves me trying to understand what happened and how so fast. I understand the psychological effects war must have on a country’s people; but, a people whose country is filled with history of preserving the Quran with such a heavy drug epidemic. The young as old as three months, users having withdrawal symptoms at the age of 3 years, mostly orphaned by war. Sadly the young must support their addiction by selling themselves into prostitution. The drug culture is maintained by the lack of medical attention & lead by the drug cartel whose pay offs to government officials makes it easy to transport to other surrounding countries. Most of the people addicted to Heroin the drug made from the opium plant, ironically; Afghanistan is the leading producer of the opioid plant in the world. The most effected drug addicts in this film were affected directly by the bombing that their village is receiving during the war. Seeing the orphaned infants addicted because of the lack of medical attention, children trying to survive from amputated limbs, elders addicted because it’s cheaper to get high on Heroin than it is to feed a family ( Heroin deters hunger). I believe this is an International problem when you’re talking addiction...
Words: 466 - Pages: 2
...The limitation of free speech on college campuses Many people believe in freedom of speech. Freedom of speech usually exist in democratic countries including the United States of America. Furthermore, The U.S, also known as “Free country” have legalized the freedom of speech in every institution such as school, college, or church. There are many people including myself who are against freedom of speech in specific sectors such as school and college. On the other hand, the University of Missouri believe in the power of free speech even though in some cases it can be offensive. Why should free speech be limited on campuses? When should free speech be limited on campuses? Who should take responsibility of free speech on campuses? Erika Christakis, the the Yale Associate House Matter states, “Free speech and the ability to tolerate offense are the hallmarks of a free and open society” (“Campus adults: protect free speech” 1) and the authorities of the university of Missouri adopted that slogan. I believe that free speech should be limited in the university of Missouri in order to reduce the effects of creating an offensive, demeaning, intimidating, and hostile environment for other students on campus. First, I am against the total freedom of speech in the university of Missouri because it can create an offensive environment on campus. The offense can be directed against other students because of their race, color, religion, sex orientation, age, or disability. The recent events...
Words: 1118 - Pages: 5
...The limitation of free speech on college campuses Many people believe in freedom of speech. Freedom of speech usually exist in democratic countries including the United States of America. Furthermore, The U.S, also known as “Free country” have legalized the freedom of speech in every institution such as school, college, or church. There are many people including myself who are against freedom of speech in specific sectors such as school and college. On the other hand, the University of Missouri believe in the power of free speech even though in some cases it can be offensive. Why should free speech be limited on campuses? When should free speech be limited on campuses? Who should take responsibility of free speech on campuses? Erika Christakis, the the Yale Associate House Matter states, “Free speech and the ability to tolerate offense are the hallmarks of a free and open society” (“Campus adults: protect free speech” 1) and the authorities of the university of Missouri adopted that slogan. I believe that free speech should be limited in the university of Missouri in order to reduce the effects of creating an offensive, demeaning, intimidating, and hostile environment for other students on campus. First, I am against the total freedom of speech in the university of Missouri because it can create an offensive environment on campus. The offense can be directed against other students because of their race, color, religion, sex orientation, age, or disability. The recent events...
Words: 1052 - Pages: 5
...When we think of freedom of speech most only think about that freedom in the instance of people being able to speak, protest or lobby the government. The United States lives by the thought that even a single voice can make a difference if they speak up for what they believe in or if they see something being done that is wrong. In today’s day and age, you see people using their freedom of speech to voice their concern for anything and everything. These same people are very adamant in getting their voice to the right people to gain momentum in righting whatever they deem to be wrong. Furthermore, if you look back to 1791 when Freedom of Speech was added to the U.S. Constitution as part of the Bill of Rights, there is no way that the people back...
Words: 877 - Pages: 4
...Free speech should be allowed on campus. Free speech is meant to be free and should not be limited to certain areas. Our first amendment rights tell us that we have free speech, along with some other freedoms, and that should mean free not limited to certain areas. The people on campus should have the right to say what they want and not fear getting in trouble for it. These people should have the same rights as if they were not on campus, but that does not seem like how it is. The schools are there to help the students and to teach them better and newer things in life. Colleges are not there to restrict your rights, they are there to help you learn and to help you get a career after you graduate. They do have free speech on most campuses, but they have designated it to certain zones. These zones are a good idea, but it is our first amendment right to have the freedom of speech and they are slowly taking that away from us on campus. The administrative forces have been trying to punish these people that are not following by their rules. These colleges are trying to limit the free speech of students in their schools. These people try to take a stand with peaceful protests, but they just end up getting...
Words: 1017 - Pages: 5
...Haroon Abdullah Senior Project Rough Ideas Should freedom of speech have some legal restrictions? Abstract The report given below tells us about the “freedom of speech”, its history and why it has become a problem in the modern world today. The term freedom means that you have the complete right to live however you want, without any interference from a second or third person. It also means living the life you want and not living the way any government wants. Similarly, freedom of speech is the concept of the inborn human right to be heard, and to give voice to their own outlook, beliefs and judgments without the dread of being penalized and rebuked. This freedom is not limited to speaking publicly, and is usually taken to comprise of other forms of expression. It is the right to put forward your opinion without hesitation, to worship whoever you want, to criticize whoever and whatever, and to express yourself liberally. The freedom of expression is a topic talked around the entire world. In this report, I will talk about whether freedom of speech should have legal restrictions or not. This report will also include all kinds of visual aids, stats, and a logical conclusion in the end. Introduction (history) It is believed that the idea of free speech goes back to ancient times. It was the Romans and Greeks that first recognized their right to be able to raise their voice and say what they believe in. Free Speech is closely linked to democracy, as democracy created...
Words: 1500 - Pages: 6
...of liberty and limited government. Mill asserts that ‘nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised over the individual.’ To encounter individual rights, what if the individual liberties of two people are getting conflict with each other? Mill states liberalism concerns about ‘harm principle’ which ‘the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.’ If the individual action does not directly harm other’s interests, the behaviour should not be interfered in spite of the refusal from general public. Harm is classified as ‘self-regarding’ and ‘other-regarding’ in which the authority can interfere with the latter. ‘Self-regarding’ is defined as harms only concerns personally, his independence of right, in which should not be prohibited under the major premise – being unaffected to any individual else. However, Mill argues that society has the responsibility of warming others to prevent an individual potential danger as other’s interests are going to be infringed . It presents the thought of ‘other-regarding’. Additionally, other-regarding is composed of ‘hurt’ and ‘harm’ among which ‘physical pain (a hurt) does not constitute a harm unless it also entails a setback to an interest.’ According to the excerpt, Mill declares ‘over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign’ , holding a strong belief that personal freedom is essential under...
Words: 901 - Pages: 4
...What is freedom? Freedom is the ability to act, think or speak freely without limitation. The United States of America is notorious for being founded on the basis of freedom and democracy. Freedom is an amazing thing to have but there are times where it is used excessively causing harm around us. It is wonderful to be able to express opinions but there should be a limit as to what we should say to others or in public. John Stuart Mill argues that the government must never censor its citizens, no matter their opinion and that is agreeable to certain extent. The Bill of Rights is one of the nations essential founding documents added to the constitution in 1791. The Bill of Rights are the first 10 amendments to the constitution that limit the power of the United Stated federal government and itemizes fundamental rights and liberties provided to the people. The Founding fathers wanted to create a strong national government in which its citizens were able to have a voice in what goes on in the government. Though the constitution had already certain rights protected for the citizens many argued that those amendments weren’t enough for many citizens. Thomas Jefferson, one of the founding fathers was pressuring the government to pass the bill of rights. “ A bill of rights he insisted is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular and what no just government should refuse” (Bessette and Pitney p.57). In other words, Jefferson wanted the...
Words: 1344 - Pages: 6
...Some people believe that freedom of speech is something that should be limited when it come to sensitive information. I feel that if its limited it not freedom. This was a big problem. Note it was a problem. Its not the information that is so called sensitive it’s the public’s reaction to it that causes the problem I think the world only has a problem with freedom of press when it’s either about them or if its bad press. I have never seen anyone complaining about press that is in his or her favor or anything that is not in his or her favor Freedom of the press is defined by dictionary.com as the right to circulate opinion in print without censorship from the government. America’s Founding Fathers believed so strongly in the right to free speech that they codified it in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states in part, “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” This right was considered so important it was the first of the ten freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights. So why should anyone think or feel that they can limit people on their right as humans. I see freedom of press as the same thing as freedom of speech. Most individual are fine with freedom of press until it hits home. So why take the right away when your in the spotlight. It just isn’t fair. I really don’t think that sensitive information sways people in the work plae one way or the other. For everything that said in the press there is...
Words: 904 - Pages: 4
...It is timely to consider the benefits and abuses of adolescent's free speech in school in this era when false news stories, that are nothing more than opinion have escalated and the freedom of the press is so often under attack. The freedom of speech is a core principle and right given to the American people under the Constitution. This freedom ensures the continuing development of democracy, as well as many other freedoms that our nation can easily take for granted. Institutions of free speech and freedom of press ensure that the truth is exposed and that ideas improve (Stark & Soltis, 2015). However, John Mill in his essay, “On Liberty,” points out that these same freedoms are cut back for minors still in the care of their parents (as...
Words: 1162 - Pages: 5
...charismatic nature and unfaltering authenticity in every single speech defined him as a true leader – one who might finally be able to restore faith in the American presidency in a country perpetually traumatized by the Watergate Scandal. Reagan brought indisputable political beliefs established on a solid sense of conservatism as well as a solid moral code built on firm religious values. These two features that Reagan exemplified laid the groundwork for an administration that was characterized by consistent and unyielding principles. The perfect example of this aspect of his administration is prevalent in his rhetoric. His small anecdotes, perfect word choice, and references to past great leaders all underscored his incredible ability to communicate the successes and lessen the defeats that faced his administration. Through his use of consistent and unique rhetoric from his first major speech in 1964 continued to his farewell speech in 1989, Ronald Reagan established motifs of freedom, limited government, moral renewal, and hope for the future that ultimately rescue American pride in the executive branch and in the country as a whole. In Ronald Reagan’s second inaugural address, which spans just over three pages, he used the word freedom 17 times. He took one of the most complex and hard to achieve concepts in the world and used America’s mastery of it to his advantage. The majority of American citizens loved the freedoms given to us by this bill of rights making it easy for Reagan...
Words: 4643 - Pages: 19
...1) There has always been a line of respect for objects with purpose, but in modern times the burning of the American flag is one that continues to be a topic of controversy. 2) The burning of the United States flag should be illegal. 3) Limits in Freedom of speech, flag desecration, and the right to protest and the actions of individuals and messages carried out by others has lead me to believe that freedom of speech shouldn’t be absolute only limited. 4) Although people wish to express their political discomfort. There is no need for them to express it in a way that desecrates the American flag as it represents the nation that gives them the opportunity to protest their discomfort in the first place. II) Body 1) According to Armstrong Williams, the freedom of expression, of course,...
Words: 741 - Pages: 3
...Constitution protects our basic rights are that it gives us freedom of speech, expression, and religion. We also always have the right to due process. These are a few ways the Constitution protects our basic rights. Why did the Founders think freedom of religion was so important? 1a. The Founders thought freedom of religion was important because they didn’t want to violate people’s individual rights. They also did not want conflict among the colonists because of the differences in their beliefs. One major reason the colonists...
Words: 1050 - Pages: 5
...As provided by Article 10 of Federal Constitution, Malaysian citizens do enjoy the right to freedom of speech. According to our Prime Minister YAB Dato’ Seri Mohd Najib bin Tun Abd Razak, freedom of speech must be suited and match Malaysian norms which are synonymous with good manners and noble values. Although it is clear and unambiguous called every citizen has the right to freedom of expression and speech, but all subject to the other clauses. For example, racist remarks and incitement that could interfere with national security are not allowed. In this issue, the right of expression come into conflict with the right to live in peace. Malaysia is not the only country set this rules as United Kingdom also impose limits more or less the same even freedom of speech and expression is the negative rights of the people under the "common law". Former Malaysian Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir is the most outspoken leaders defend free speech restrictions. According to him at the Culture Inaugural Lectures 2011, 10 November 2011, freedom of speech should be limited so that this right is not being used by some people to incite other people. Summary, in the other communities want to defend their right of speech, they should not interfere with the rights of peace and tranquillity which claimed the other. From our point of view, freedom of speech through social media in this country should be given attention and be heard especially in terms of improving government...
Words: 413 - Pages: 2
...republican president: Bush. The same happened more or less to Bush, and after that to Barack Obama. This is called the Fundamental Split between political parties. As part of that, what happened is that American people were able to express their ideas. They often like to have one party at power in the Congress and another party at power in the Government. What if a third party develops himself? One of the two parties will try to move towards the same ideas. They do have third party candidates in Congress, but their power is very small. It’s an idea that is embraced by the American people: there’s a uniform trust in the government. They have a real debate going on right now in the US: on the left, you have people who think that the government should do more and more/be involved in more things. The left doesn’t like Barack Obama because they think he’s not envolved enough in giving governmental solutions. On the other hand, the right doesn’t like Obama neither because...
Words: 7876 - Pages: 32
