« Discussion 3 (Due 6/11 by 11:59pm)

Gracyn Pires

Discussion 3

3 replies
JP Mary Campbell MM
Last

  1. Former Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas once said, "Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." Reflect on this statement and whether or not you agree or disagree with Justice Douglas. Although we do have the right and restriction of free thought and freedom of speech, It could lead to a dangerous situation. I agree with Justice William O. Douglas statement because even though we have the freedom to think and speak freely, how society's culture today somethings are not politically correct to say. This could be anywhere from discrepancies of religion, race, and political views. Having these discrepancies with others can cause a dangerous fight. Another big example that I can think of is the cancel culture. Famous people are followed and always watched. One bad statement could be made and they could be canceled and lose an enormous amount. Overall, everyone is always watched even if you don’t know. Having the freedom of speech and free thought is amazing but also can cause problems throughout life. 

  2. The right to privacy has been behind some of the most controversial Supreme Court decisions of the last century. Is privacy one of the rights granted in the U.S. Constitution even though it is not specifically spelled out? If it's not spelled out, where does this right come from? Even though privacy is not specifically spelled out, the U.S. The Constitution gives privacy rights in various amendments. For example the search without warrant without probable cause. This means that law enforcements can not search private property/situations without probable cause that something happened to be granted a warrant. Another one is the first amendment where you have privacy of beliefs like religion, petitions, and other personal rights. Last example is the states can not deprive a citizen of life, liberty, or process without due process of the law. To conclude, the U.S. does not spell out the right of privacy but there are many laws and amendments that connect to the right of privacy. 

  3. Salim Hamdan, a driver employed by Osama bin Laden, spent more than seven years in United States custody because he was suspected of terrorist activities. Hamdan was eventually reunited with his family on January 8, 2009, after a more than seven year long detention. Human rights organizations continue to criticize the U.S. government for its treatment of Hamdan and other non-citizen prisoners, asserting that everyone is entitled to the fundamental legal protections provided by the U.S. Constitution. Should terrorism suspects be tried in civilian courts (Rather than military tribunals) so that their civil liberties can be protected by the U.S. Constitution? I believe if they are terrorizing and a dangerous person to citizens of the United States that they should not be tried in civilian courts. They are a danger to the country and should not be given an easier trial to the acts that they were a part of or did. You do not have to the terrorizing to not be considered in these rules. If you have any part of it such as creating the ammunition, doing the act, or being a part of the plan, you should all be tried in the military tribunals for the acts they committed. They all were a part of the same dangerous act and should be prosecuted at the greatest extent for the act that they did.

3 replies
  1. Post by Mary Marques
    Re: Discussion 3
    In regards to your answer to question 3, I think any person accused of an act is just that, accused. They are not guilty until proven so and they will not be able to prove them to be guilty unless they are given a fair trial. Every American citizen is guaranteed this right no matter the accusations against them. Citizens of other countries are not protected by the U.S. Constitution but that does not mean Human Rights violations can occur against them. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to a public and fair trial. This document is not legally binding. However it does pertain to every human across the world. 
  2. Post by Mary Campbell
    Discussion Reply
    I think that speech should be limited to a degree only in regards to safety, but I think that the Supreme Court should use the limitation very sparingly because most of the rights Americans have is because of freedom of speech. I think that the only speech that should be limited is speech that will directly cause danger. I agree with your answer to number 2 and think that privacy also comes from the interpretation of Supreme Court Justices. I think that in regards to number 3, the individual should not be tried in civilian courts because the nature of their infraction was not civilian, but I think that every prisoner should be treated with a level of decency and that there are certain human rights that everyone is guaranteed. I think that a non-citizen should not be given the same rights as a citizen has, but that it is not an excuse to dehumanize them.
  3. Post by Jenna Prater
    Re: Discussion 3
    Your answer to question 1 makes me think how quick our society is to cancel someone. It is so easy to unfollow or "cancel" someone if they post something we don't agree with. Most of the time in cancel culture, social media does not allow the individual to defend themselves and instead allows the mob to take control and turn someone into a monster or public enemy. In my opinion, cancel culture is evolving into silencing speech because more people are afraid of being publicly hated by expressing their beliefs. However, you should be able to speak freely and feel safe. 
Older discussion
Newer discussion