Electric Cars Essay Research Paper The Constitution free essay sample

Electric Cars Essay, Research Paper The Constitution of the United States of America contains the basic rights of citizens of this state. There is, possibly, no right more controversial than the First Amendment in the Constitution, foremost introduced on December 15, 1791. The First Amendment provinces, ? Congress shall do no jurisprudence esteeming an constitution of faith, or forbiding the free exercising thereof ; or foreshortening the freedom of address, or of the imperativeness ; or the right of the people pacifically to piece, and to petition the authorities for a damages of grudges? ( 1st Amendment, Internet ) . Due to the indecision of this Amendment, statements over the reading of the words written by the establishing male parents have flourished for old ages. One of the chief statements that has arisen over the old ages is over the reading of what is meant by free address and free imperativeness. While this statement has stemmed off in many waies, one of the most recent and het arguments is over the authoritiess ability to ban stuff to the populace. We will write a custom essay sample on Electric Cars Essay Research Paper The Constitution or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Some of the major signifiers of censoring occur in telecasting, music, literature, and most late, the Internet. Censoring has taken topographic point in assorted signifiers since the earliest swayers existed. These earliest signifiers of censoring existed through a leader of some kind seeking to maintain his people from stating bad things about him. This censoring, while reasonably undocumented, has taken topographic point in assorted authoritiess throughout clip in most countries of the universe. While censoring today has taken a different signifier in the United States, the same basic rules hold remained the same. Censoring is fundamentally an effort by the authorities to restrict what the public sees, hears, or absorbs. I believe that all signifiers of censoring are fundamentally a misdemeanor of the basic First Amendment right that so many people take for granted. Some bound must be put on the ability of the authorities to ban any sort of communicating in the United States, or the basic rights of the people will be infringed upon. One of the biggest signifiers of censoring that takes topographic point in the United States today exists in one of the largest mediums of communicating we know of. This medium is known as the telecasting. In 1999, it was reported that over 99 % of all American families have at least one telecasting, with a bulk of the families holding more so one set available ( Chafee, 173 ) . This startling statistic is accompanied by another fact that shows the mean American tickers 30 hours of telecasting weekly ( Chafee, 173 ) . With this sort of engagement from the American populace in any sort of medium of communicating, it is no admiration why some people consider the thought of censoring with so much enthusiasm. However, grownups have the right to see stuff they please, and hence, their rights should stay integral. The job that most people have with force, sex, and profanity on telecasting comes into drama when sing the figure of kids that watch telecasting without a parent or any kind of controls on their screening. It has been reported that 10,000 Acts of the Apostless of media force are witnessed in one twelvemonth by the mean American kid ( Zeinert, 88 ) . One must maintain in head that this statistic does non include any sexual content or profanity kids may see. The American populace has expressed some concern over the material their kids view each twenty-four hours, and that has been the beginning and the continued push behind the demand for some kind of censoring of telecasting. It wasn? T until the dramatic addition in violent offenses committed by kids, nevertheless, that there was a strong public demand to ban the stuff kids have entree excessively. While the claim that something demands to be done to at least cut down the sum of force, sexual stuff, or profanity that American kids position has began to pick up support among the American populace, the agencies by which to carry through such a undertaking have yet to be resolved. Some argue that censoring is the lone manner to carry through such a big graduated table job, but others argue that the job starts at place. A study conducted by the Roper Center concluded that over 50 % of parents do non supervise what their kids ticker at place. This figure shows me that parents are non taking the duty to watch their kids, and alternatively are merely trusting on telecasting to demo plans intended for younger viewing audiences. With the aid of some electronic blocking devices, such as the V-chip, parents can supervise what their kids are able to watch, without acquiring the authorities involved. The V-chip can assist parents watch their kids even when they? rhenium non place. This new precaution is the best alternate to censorship. Since many plans are get downing to incorporate a evaluation system displayed at the beginning of each show, parents can acquire a basic thought of the content of the show without holding to sit through each plan their kid wants to watch. Alternatively of censoring of the whole community, it would simply become an issue of parents covering with their kids ( Zeinert, 89 ) . I believe this issue is much less controversial and should assist alleviate the push for censoring in America. So why do we need censoring of telecasting when the parents, assisted by engineering, can supervise what their kids watch while still being able to watch plans they would wish to see themselves? The simple reply is, we don? T. A 2nd country in which censoring has started to interfere with is music. Music was originally censored much the manner free address was. In the 1700? s, New York? s Governor Crosby attempted to maintain a group of citizens from singing vocals that went against the King of England ( Chafee, 182 ) . More late, nevertheless, censoring of music has taken topographic point due to explicit wordss. Similar to the concern of force, sex, and profanity being shown to kids on telecasting, the concern of kids listening to explicit wordss in music has caused concern. The first existent instance of this happening occurred when a blame group known as? 2 Live Crew? was banned from countries of Florida because of their vocals wordss ( Zeinert, 82 ) . ? 2 Live Crew? was arrested for public lewdness, but they won their instance in the appellate tribunals based on the thought that it was illegal to censor amusement groups from executing or selling their act ( Zeinert, 83 ) . In 1985, the Parents Music Resource Center was the first company to set spines on compact phonograph record and cassettes giving a warning of? Explicit Lyrics, ? and giving? Parental Advisory? ( Chafee, 195 ) . I feel this is the first measure in the right way. Alternatively of seeking to ban music wordss, the Parents Music Resource Center is seeking to inform parents what their kids are listening to. They leave the determination of what kids can listen to up to the parents, alternatively of seeking to ban the full state. Again, censoring seems unnecessar Y, and an violation upon the rights of citizens of the United States of America. A 3rd country in which censoring has taken topographic point is in literature. Censoring in literature has increased dramatically in recent old ages. In fact, from 1991 to 1994, there has been more than a 50 % addition in the figure of demands that books be banned in schools libraries every bit good as public libraries ( Zeinert, 109 ) . Some of the books being demanded to be removed from libraries countrywide include, Huckleberry Finn, written by Mark Twain, Everlastingly, by Judy Blume, and The Bridge to Terabithia, written by Katherine Paterson. These American classics have been removed from shelves due to assorted grounds. Mark Couple? s novel, for illustration, has been attacked for its usage of the term? nigga? , every bit good as its portraiture of African American slaves. ? The province office of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People issued a statement, Feb. 3, 1998, claiming that Mark Twain # 8217 ; s authoritative, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is violative to black pupils and should be banned from schoolrooms across the province? ( Meyer, Internet ) . This sort of censoring, whether it be from public or school libraries, non merely denies the writer freedom look, but denies the reader the ability to judge for themselves the contents of a book. Many kids learn about racism, sex, maltreatment, or drugs through books that some libraries have banned. Without these books, some kids will non come to decisions about these topics until they are encountered in the existent universe, and some of import lessons such as swearing yourself, cognizing what you believe in, and holding tolerance will non be learned until the kids are grownups ( Chafee, 199 ) . It is non right to deny people of import lessons in life by denying them the right to take which stuffs they read, merely because some might happen it violative. Once once more, evaluation can be placed on books that give parents the thought of what they are reading before even opening the book, and so censoring is non needed, but merely information. The concluding, and likely most controversial, issue on the subject of censoring concerns the Internet. In the past 10 old ages, the Internet has become one of the hottest countries of argument covering with censoring. Once once more, the bulk of concern comes in with the states young person. The Internet, a tool by which great sums of information can be found, besides holds profanity, force, and particularly sexual stuff. With over 60 % of American families having a personal computing machine, and over 90 % of kids in the United States holding entree to the Internet in some manner, there needs to be a manner to precaution these kids from harmful stuff ( Meyer, Internet ) . Once once more, censoring is non the manner. It is unconstitutional to ban, prohibition, or command any Internet sites incorporating sexually expressed stuff ( Meyer, Internet ) . However, due to the fact that a big per centum of the state? s young person has entree to the Internet, it is non unreasonable to anticipate some kind of control on sexually expressed stuff. After all, it is illegal for a minor to buy erotica. In the same manner, kids should non be allowed to see sexually expressed stuff on the Internet. By the same logical thinking, sexually expressed stuff can non be banned from the Internet, because grownups have the right to buy, and hence position this stuff. Alternatively, Internet sites have been forced to at least advertise that their site contains sexually explicit stuff, and that you must be at least of legal age to come in ( Meyer, Internet ) . This is non adequate protection for the young person. New engineering, such as the E-chip, much like what can be used to assist parents restrict what their kids can watch on telecasting is now available for the Internet. This engineering allows parents to command the type of stuff their kids can see on the Internet without baning stuff for all people. So one time once more, the parents are in control of the procedure of censorship, and non the authorities. This leaves the legal issues of the First Amendment and the freedom to speech out of the image while still assisting restrict what kids see. In 1997, President Clinton has voiced his support of such stuff and parent engagement, as good as stricter enforcement of Torahs prosecuting those Internet users who deliberately interruption erotica Torahs ( Meyer, Internet ) . Clinton has besides pushed popular Internet suppliers such as Internet Explorer and Netscape Navigator to supply free plans with their merchandises to let parents to command what their kids can entree ( Meyer, Internet ) . Once once more, this stairss back from censoring and go againsting the rights of American citizens, and stairss towards giving parents the tools they need to protect their kids. Peoples should be able to show thoughts in any type of medium without authorities ordinances. All the countries that presently concern censoring have created a batch of contention in the United States tribunals. Due to the nature of the Constitution, these contentions may neer be to the full solved. However, it is clear that censoring is non the best reply to many of the issues it straight deals with. Alternatively, giving the ability for parents to command what their kids have entree to in mundane life is a much better option. Not merely does this method chorus from conflicting on the rights of citizens, but it besides allows parents to separately take what they see fit for their kids. The authorities demands to go on to back up such thoughts as the V-chip and E-chip, that give parents control. Not merely will it assist maintain the authorities out of household personal businesss, but it will halt them from holding to do Torahs that may cut down peoples rights and cause further jobs. ? 1st Amendment. ? 1999. Internet. Accessed on 04/10/99 at hypertext transfer protocol: //www.hinton.k12.ia.us/hinton/Rusk/1STAMDT.htm/ Abrams, Floyd. ? Clinton vs. the First Amendment. ? The New York Times Magazine. 30 March 1997: 42. Chafee, Zachariah Jr. ? Free Speech in the United States? . Versions of Censorship. Ed. John McCormick and Mairi MacInnes. Chicago: Aldine, 1962. 172-200. ? Constitutional Law. ? 1999. Internet. Accessed on 04/20/99 at hypertext transfer protocol: //members.iex.net/~jriley/ps401.htm. Gelfand, Ravinia. The Freedom of Speech in America. Learner Publications Company. Gopher state: 1967. Hogeboom, William H. ? Censorship V. Censure-ship. ? Billboard. 27March 1993:6. Mayor, Federico. Unfettered Freedom. Unesco-Courier, may 1995, p.38. InfoTrac SuperTom full text, November 1998. ? Prayer and Religious Instruction in Schools. ? 1999. Internet. Accessed on 04/23/99 at hypertext transfer protocol: //www.witchvox.com/white/wscourt_schools.html. ? Supreme Court Cases. ? 1999. Internet. Accessed on 04/23/99 at hypertext transfer protocol: //laws.findlaw.com/US/ . Zeinert, Karen. ? Free Address? . New Jersey: Enslow