1) Hate speech is not covered by the first amendment, but acts of provocative pr
ID: 3871910 • Letter: 1
Question
1) Hate speech is not covered by the first amendment, but acts of
provocative protest, such as burning the American flag or the
Koran are. Where should we draw the line in prohibiting speech?
For example, if burning the Koran, or making cartoons depicting
Mohammud is likely to result in deaths, should they be outlawed,
or should free speech be seen as inviolable?
2) What do you think of the net neutrality idea? If Comcast or
Verizon own the hardware that shuttles data across the Internet,
should they not be able to prioritize traffic how they see fit?
Explanation / Answer
Hate speech is not covered by the first amendment, but acts of provocative protest, such as burning the American flag or the Koran are because burning the flag leads to harm one's national integrity and identity while burning koran which led to outpouring of violence in afghanistan resulted in death of many inocent people . The event that took has disrepect one 's religious faith on its religion automatically you hurting them.
I think hate speech are different from these incident that took place .Atleast we speak regarding any issue but not hurting publicy any religions faith.
Absolute free speech is democratic right ,everyone have the right to pick up pen and make the point but its upto us "where we draw the line".
Net neutrality is the principle that government and ISP regulating all data on the internet flow same when we reach any website .An ISP doesn not control the traffic .when a user to web service he or she gets the same speed.some countries have rules for it but most don't.
If there is no net neutrality ,ISPs will have the power to shape traffic so that they can derived extra benefit ,then they will charge form youtube and others. They want share in the money that youtube makes.
ThankYou!!
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.