Invisible Saviour Siblings Essay Example for Free

Invisible Saviour Siblings Essay The philosopher Immanuel Kant said â€Å"Treat others as an end and not as means to an end. † People need to value others for themselves rather than for what they can achieve by the means of them. The idea of selecting an embryo, conceived by IVF, which will become a child that can donate for an older sibling suffering from a genetic disease, has created a difficult moral dilemma. Concerns over the creation of what are called â€Å"savoir siblings† are specifically created to help an existing child. In the novel â€Å"My Sister’s Keeper† by Jodi Picoult there is a girl named Anna who was brought in to this world for the purpose to save her sister Kate. Anna suggests that while her method of coming into the world is not conventional, since most babies born are unwanted; she at least was a wanted child. But she is wanted as a product, as a medical treatment, as a donor. Anna came to a decision that she wanted to stop donating to her sister, so she starts a lawsuit for medical emancipation; the right to control her own body. The child is used as something instrumental and has a welcome that is far from being unconditional. Even the label savoir† is a misnomer. When we speak of a savoir we refer to someone who has made an active choice to donate. The child never has a choice. When a donation occurs it will have lifelong effects on the body. The possible psychological problem the child will have from being a savior sibling. The parents do not think about the saviour child in the terms of an individual. The parents need to realize that there is a line that separates the value of preserving life and the costs of the quality of life. When a child is born it is up to the parents to make the decisions for them, but what if the parents are not focus on that child? It is their zeal to make things better for their sick child, but the parents have forgotten that their donor child is a person with feelings, not a something just to pick at when needed. In the case of babies who are selected as a source of cells, the â€Å"savior is passive and is treated as a product. The choices being made about donation is not even being discussed about. Anna is not even being asked about what she wants to do, â€Å"You make it sound like there’s some process involved. Like there’s actually a choice. † (192) the parents are deciding what is for the best. They do not even consult with Anna about how she feels about everything. Anna had to quit hockey because she was missing two many games, but the only reason why she was missing games was that she had to be there when Kate might need something. Her choice to play hockey was taken away from her and no one in her family even cared. They did not even notice when she started to play hockey, so why would they notice when she stopped. There is a big chance that the family would not even listen to Anna if she would have said that she does not want to continue being the donor. The doctors do not ever consult with Anna about what she wanted to do; they only talked to the parents. They never let Anna make her choice. She was brought in this world as a savior sibling, but it did not mean to make her sacrifice her whole life. The use of savior siblings have raised the issue of the possibility of psychological trauma that the created sibling may suffer from knowing that they was created partly for reasons of imposed selflessness. The child could feel as if they had been used. The donor sibling would feel that they were around to provide â€Å"spare parts†, and were not valued for who they are. Remember the adolescent cry â€Å"I did not ask to be born† and add to it the accusation that the parents only had them to save their siblings life. The moment the child is brought in to this world they have a job to perform. How the parents treat Anna makes her feel like her only purpose in life is to help heal Kate. With these feelings it makes her think about what if Kate was not sick, â€Å"It made me wonder, though, what would have happened if Kate had been healthy. Chances are, I’d still be floating up in Heaven or wherever, waiting to be attached to a body to spend some time on Earth† (08). If Kate was healthy would the parents ever thought about having a third child. The parents once said that their family was complete with two children; each child favored a parent. Anna has matured faster than any child her age, because from the start of her life she was not fully allowed to be a child. She learnt early on that Kate was the main focus and everything else became second. Growing up is hard enough, but when there is question on ones existence it can have serious emotional effects. The child becomes lost in their quest for their own identity. Furthermore, if the treatment of the sick child is unsuccessful, their death can be much harder for the savior sibling, as they may feel as if they have failed. The child would have to go through the rest of their life feeling guiltily about not saving their sibling life. Donating an organ is not as simple as it sounds. The donor of the organ has to deal with limitations on their life. In the novel Anna is being pressured by her mother to donate her kidney to her sister Kate. Her mother does not think about the after effects of the surgery. Anna loves to play hockey, but donating her kidney will stop here from playing. Kidney organ donors should not participate in physical activity that could damage their other kidney. Anna’s mother Sara only concern is Kate, so when Anna wanted to go to Hockey camp her mother said no. Her mother is not caring for what Anna wants â€Å"Not because I am afraid of what might to Anna there, but because I am afraid of what might happen to Kate while her sister is gone. If Kate survives this latest relapse†¦.. we will need Anna-her blood, her stem cells, her tissue-right here. (269), she wanted Anna to be where she needed her. If Anna did go through with the surgery something could go wrong, but does her parents ever does comprehend it. If there were no complications with any of these procedures, the savior sibling would still stay in the hospital with stress and pain which they are not gaining any type of personal benefit. The mother will be so worried about Kate after the surgery; she will be by her side and not by Anna’s. The parents should not make an organ donation decision. It has to be Anna’s choice. Going through with a kidney donation, she would lose some quality of her life. While there is potential harm, it is not without potential benefits to the saviour sibling. The donor child might derive pleasure from knowing that he or she has saved his or her sibling’s life and would benefit from the saved child’s company. In this respect, it is appropriate to consider the welfare of the donor child within the context of the family since his or her social, emotional and psychological interests depend on the welfare of the child’s family. Saving the life of the existing sibling is also in his or her best interests. This will ensure a happier family (e. g. no grieving parents) from which the donor child would benefit. There are benefits to the child, but if the child is born and the transplant is made but is unsuccessful, what comes of the family at that point? The donor child would feel that they have fail in their job in helping to keep their sibling alive. If the transplant was successful, there is no time frame for a savior sibling to stop providing transplants for their older sibling. The donor sibling could chose not to donate later in life or chose to no longer accept the role of â€Å"saviour† for which they were originally conceived. The parents might not like that they brought this child in to this world for a certain purpose, but now the child does not want to donate anymore. The savior child would have no support from their family. They would feel that they had only one purpose; to save their sibling. Parents have more choices than ever before and they need to use every resource available to protect the health of their children, but there is a line that should not be crossed. There are potential harmful psychological effects on a child born not for itself, but to save another. If conception of saviour siblings for the donation of cord blood stem cells is permitted, what is to stop donation ending there. There may be an inevitable situation where the donor child will be expected to â€Å"donate† bone marrow in the event that the umbilical cord stem cell transplant fails or the sick sibling relapses and requires further treatment. If the child is under age, then the parents decide the choice for them and of course they would have the savior child donate whatever the sick child needs. Parents are blinded from seeing what is in the best interest for both of their children. The only thing that is on their mind is to save their sick child. If there is no benefit at all to the created saviour child, it appears hard to justify that it is humane and proper to use them to save the life of a sibling. Every parent has to seriously decide the point at which they will halt their efforts to save their sick child regardless of the potential outcome. There comes a point when people have to realize there is nothing they can do. The parents get so consumed in the entire process and the emotions involved in saving your sick child that they may lose the ability to know when to stop. Despite how gut-wrenching it may be, they have to stop, not only for the sake of their other children, but for the sake of their sick child. They should have to realize that there comes a point when vigilance becomes obsession and good intentions get warped and bastardized to the point that they do more harm than good. People should to write to President to have him put regulations on the use of Genetic technology for creation of savoir siblings. A savior sibling cannot lose their quality of life just because they were conceived with the weight of the family on their shoulders. The child should not go through life suffering, for the reason that she was conceived to help heal their sick sibling.

Satan or Santa? :: social issues

Satan or Santa? To Whom It May Concern: I regret to inform you that, effective immediately, I will no longer be able to serve Southern United States on Christmas Eve. Due to the overwhelming current population of the earth, my contract was renegotiated by North American Fairies and Elves Local 209. I now serve only certain areas of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin and Michigan. As part of the new and better contract I also get longer breaks for milk and cookies so keep that in mind. However, I'm certain that your children will be in good hands with your local replacement who happens to be my third cousin, Bubba Claus. His side of the family is from the South Pole. He shares my goal of delivering toys to all the good boys and girls; however, there are a few differences between us. Differences Such As: There is no danger of a Grinch stealing your presents from Bubba Claus. He has a gun rack on his sleigh and a bumper sticker that reads: "These toys insured by Smith and Wesson." Instead of milk and cookies, Bubba Claus prefers that children leave an RC cola and pork rinds [or a moon pie] on the fireplace. And Bubba doesn't smoke a pipe. He dips a little snuff though, so please have an empty spit can handy. Bubba Claus' sleigh is pulled by floppy-eared, flying' coon dogs instead of reindeer. I made the mistake of loaning him a couple of my reindeer one time, and Blitzen's head now overlooks Bubba's fireplace. You won't hear "On Comet, on Cupid, on Donner and Blitzen..." when Bubba Claus arrives. Instead, you'll hear, "On Earnhardt, on Wallace, on Martin and Labonte. On Rudd, on Jarrett, on Elliott and Petty." "Ho, ho, ho!" has been replaced by "Yee Haw!" And you also are likely to hear Bubba's elves respond, "I her'd dat!" As required by Southern highway laws, Bu bba Claus' sleigh does have a Yosemite Sam safety triangle on the back with the words "Back off". The last I heard it also had other decorations on the sleigh back as well. One is Ford or Chevy logo with lights that race through the letters and the other is a caricature of me (Santa Claus) going potty on the Tooth Fairy. The usual Christmas movie classics such as "Miracle on 34th Street" and "It's a Wonderful Life" will not be shown in your negotiated viewing area.

Main Causes of American Intervention in World War I

The war was between the Triple Entente-? Great Britain, Russia, and France-?and the Central Powers, which was comprised of Germany, Italy, and Austria-Hungary. The vast majority of Americans strongly designated themselves a neutral nation. They believed themselves morally superior to war and viewed it to be an unnecessary, primitive solution. Even President Woodrow Wilson immediately announced America's neutrality, after recently winning the presidential election in 1916 for his second consecutive term, bearing the campaign slogan â€Å"He kept us out of war. However, despite Minimal disapproval of World War l. Many controversial events and certain predictions caused the united States to teeter between the line of isolation and intervention. It was President Willow's strong guidance and insightful evaluations of foreign actions and domestic reactions that led to America's involvement in the Great War on April 6, 1917. Right from the start, both Germany and Britain quickly began spre ading propaganda, attempting to promote their own country motives and Justify their grounds for being in the war.Propaganda Is defined as information, Ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, Institution, or nation. Both nations were affecting public opinion, but in the summer of 1915, German doctor Heimlich Albert mistakenly put a halt to Germany's influence. Albert was a preventative of the German Information Service, an agency that was responsible for dispersing rumors in the United States. As he quickly rushed to board his train, he unknowingly left his briefcase, containing German propaganda.After It was recovered by an American secret service agent, the documents and their purpose were quickly known throughout the nation, giving citizens a negative perception of Germany. British propaganda was also in circulation, and although this possibility was known by the American population, it was never proved, making it difficult to deciphe r reliable information from exaggerated. Generally these ideas proposed hat it was German aggression that was responsible for the provocation of the war In Europe, and the Allies-?the Triple Entente-?were simply fighting In defense of collocation gallant tenet Darrell opposition.Germany was salsa to nave uses â€Å"ruthless, militaristic war tactics† and to have an autocratic society, which contested America's democratic society. In an effort to coax American entry, Britain asserted that the war was unfolding in their favor, and the outcome seemed promising. However, they were actually in financial straits and struggling to survive, but they did not want America to think the war was a lost cause. Ironically, this assurance had an opposite effect on America's willingness to assist them.The public proclaimed that if the Triple Entente expected victory, then American intervention would be a pointless waste of money, resources, and lives. Germany's war tactics and disregard towar d the rules of engagement of war also negatively impacted America's Judgment of them. Early in the war Germany invaded Belgium, a country that pronounced its neutrality as America did, and fought on the soil of an unwilling nation. While occupying Belgium for more than four years, the Germans shot thousands of civilians, dotted and burned towns, and deported civilians, forcing them to assemble weapons and build defenses.The German chancellor referred too peace treaty written in agreement between the two nations as a â€Å"scrap of paper. † This disrespect to the wishes of Belgium was later called â€Å"The Rape of Belgium† and portrayed English- speaking countries as defenders of freedom. To add to Germany's misconduct, the tactics that they used during the war appalled the American nation. They deployed â€Å"dirigible† bombardments on cities, which was combat through a blimp-like airship. This aerial attack would stream poisonous gas over enemy areas, impartia lly taking he lives of both innocent civilians and soldiers.An inhumane and deadly technique such as this had previously been unknown to the world. Similarly, the engagement of submarine warfare, with their newly developed U-boats, hurt Germany's cause in the battle for American support. Germany utilized their new technology of U-boats to destroy both enemy warships and merchant vessels of nonbelligerent nations, some of which contained American citizens, enraging the United States. U-boats were small, slow-moving, and vulnerable, but they were the first submarines the world had ever seen, so defending them was difficult, even for the world-renowned British navy.The Germans used this stealthy weapon to overcome the blockade that was implemented by the British fleet. The impenetrable fleet effectively prevented all trade ships containing weapons or food from reaching countries occupied by the Central Power, as well as neighboring neutral countries. They also cut all undersea communic ation cables. The German sinking of American ships the Louisiana and Sussex had the most significant response from the United States. It was after this complete disregard for U. S. Requests that Wilson concluded he could no longer imply ignore Germany's constant, rebellious insubordination.He began to realize that war was imminent. In 1915, U-boats sank the American merchant vessel the Louisiana, killing 128 American citizens. Still wanting to maintain neutrality, President Wilson reacted by merely demanding that Germany abide by protocol of restricted warfare, in addition to arming merchant vessels for defense. Germany agreed but then later declared unlimited warfare on all ships, openly admitting that â€Å"mistakes will be made. † In 1917, the U-boats sank another American vessel, the Sussex, killing another 25 Americans.Although Germany argued that it was difficult to identify the ship, Americans were clearly frustrated with their lack of discretion. Despite this Loosely AT Electroscope, American colleens exclusively continual to remain neutral. I nee reasoned that the few Americans taken by German U-boats were not worth risking the lives of the 100 million Americans that were left. Instead, they criticized Wilson for the tragedy. They claimed that he provoked the attack by being a â€Å"silent member† of the Allies through one-sided trade and allowing the expansion of their blockade without a diplomatic challenge.However, Woodrow Wilson maintained that he was imply learning from the mistakes that led to the War of 1812 and was motivated by neutrality by â€Å"trying to avoid unnecessary trouble. † In fact, when the United States learned of what later became known as the infamous Zimmerman Telegram, it was determined that the attack was offensive and would have occurred even if Wilson had contested the blockade. In January of 1917, British intelligence intercepted and deciphered a telegram sent from the German foreign minister, Arthur Zimmerman, to the German minister of Mexico, von Gerhardt.This occurred shortly after Germany sunk the Sussex, and it revealed Germany's true intentions toward the U. S. The telegram offered American territory to Mexico that America won during the Mexican- American War in the late sass's. In return, Germany requested that Mexico attack the United States if they should enter the Great War on the side of the Triple Entente, and to also request the aid of Japan. This clearly demonstrated that the sinking of the Sussex was an attack intended to lure America into the war, and Mexico, as well, to fight alongside Germany.Before this document was found, Wilson still chose neutrality in the face of American casualties, saying, â€Å"There is such a thing as a man Ewing too proud to fight. There is such a thing as a nation being so right that it does not need to convince others by force that it is right. † The telegram, along with encounters with Germany before the Great War, caused Wi lson to contemplate intervention. During the Spanish-American War, in 1898, many perceived Germany to be a potential threat to America's interests and security because of the similarities between the two nations.Both were Just beginning to establish themselves as great world powers that were rapidly industrialized and seeking overseas markets, naturally creating a rivalry. German interest in the Philippine Islands, West Indies, Galapagos Islands, and Haiti was also unsettling because it posed a threat to the completion of the Panama Canal, which was finished in August of 1914. Germany's desire to expand to the Western Hemisphere worried President Wilson, and the main deterrent of this expansion, until this point, had been from Britain's control over the Atlantic.Wilson, along with many others, feared that if the Central Powers overcame the Triple Entente, Germany would become the new naval supremacy, over Great Britain. This conclusion became known as the â€Å"realist appraisal. T he realist appraisal proclaimed that British victory was essential to American security, because they were needed by the United States to provide a balance of powers. It was widely agreed that America and Great Britain had paralleled interests. Without this balance of power, Germany would see no resistance if they decided to attack America.This claim was consistent in many people, including James W. Gerard, the American Ambassador to Germany, who said, â€Å"We are next on [Germany's] list,† if they won the war. With this risk in mind, the Monroe Doctrine quickly became Jeopardized. The Monroe Doctrine was institutionalized by President James Monroe in 1823 and was composed of three main concepts. The first stated that the Western Hemisphere of ten world would a De Innocence Day America, Ana ten Eastern Hemisphere Day Europe. The second and third concepts opposed colonization and intervention.With these concepts in mind, it is evident that the doctrine is likely to be violate d by Germany upon the victory of the Central Powers, because they would intervene in America's hemisphere. In order to preserve the proclamation, America's intervention was deed. The night before the United States announced its entrance into the war, the newly appointed secretary of state, Robert Lansing, wrote, The Allies must not be beaten. It would mean the triumph of autocracy over democracy; the shattering of all our moral standards; and real, although it may seem remote, peril to our independence and institutions.President Wilson desperately struggled to keep peace with Germany in order to save American lives, but his attempts were hopeless. He was aware that an Allied victory was more favorable to American interests, but he also believed that the war would leave Germany weak and unable to pose an immediate threat to America. In the years that Germany needed to recuperate its army and replenish resources, Wilson planned to strengthen the Ana and prepare for a possible war.Howe ver, upon Germany's denial of Willow's two peace proposals and the renewal of submarine warfare, which Germany had consistently added to over the last few years, the president's plan seemed too far away. Germany's lack of effort to come to peace with America predicted their intention on making America the next target sooner than expected. In addition to the influences by Lansing and future president Theodore Roosevelt, President Wilson realized that an intervention was more necessary than previously assumed, and he knew that he would need the support of his country if he was going to succeed in involving the nation.Primarily through propaganda, the U. S. Government caused the change in public opinion from isolation to intervention. Most of the nation continuously adhered to an isolationist prospective, but those who held the view of the realist appraisal also happened to be those in Eastern America who had a strong influence on public opinion. On April 13, the Committee on Public In formation (ICP) was assembled by President Wilson to conduct American propaganda in the United States and overseas.George Creel, the selected manager of the committee, called it the â€Å"world's greatest adventure in advertising,† because it essentially â€Å"advertised† the war to the American people. The three main themes that were portrayed were unity, the image of a despicable enemy, and the idea of a crusade for peace and freedom. They overwhelmed the press with so much information that it was practically impossible to determine what was exaggerated from what was not. Slowly, intervention began to gain nationwide support. Once Congress accepted a declaration for war from President Wilson, America would officially be in the war.Wilson addressed Congress for a declaration of war on April 2, 1917, through what has been claimed to â€Å"rank among the three or four greatest presidential speeches in American history. † He argued that in reality, America had bee n in the war ever since their vessels were sunk by German U-boats. Because of this, it was only logical to officially announce involvement in order to gain any advantages that it might bring. Wilson also emphasized that America was not at war with Germany but at war with the autocratic government instead. The world must be safe for democracy' was the point that he conveyed, and if the Central Powers won the war, democracy would, in fact, be in peril. Both George Washington Ana I mommas Jefferson warned against â€Å"entangling alliances† Ana promoted Isolation to avoid foreign wars. This attitude was maintained and universally accepted since the War of 1812, but this principle was no longer sufficient. Since the war in Europe began in 1914, countless events occurred that warranted U. S. Entry into the war, but they were all rationalized to maintain isolation.President Woodrow Wilson thoroughly examined what had happened up to that point and carefully calculated the events tha t would ensue, and he wisely decided to Join Great Britain on the side of the Triple Entente. He unified the nation and created universal support, which led to the Allied victory on November 1 1, 1918, preserving democracy for the world, along with the bright future of the United States. The end of the war marked a new era in history, one that held the United States at the pinnacle of the world's great powers. Endnotes

Free Speech vs Hate Speech Essay - 1647 Words

Free Speech vs. Harmful Hate Speech Freedom of speech is instilled at the beginning of the Bill of Rights and it allows citizens of the United States to express their opinions without being afraid of what might happen to them, much like in other countries. Many times people are directly or indirectly harmed by others’ actions that are considered a right under the freedom of speech clause. Though, some people worry that if we do not allow for complete freedom of speech, it is hard to figure out what the limits are. So how can we distinguish between what is covered under our freedom of speech right and what is not if there are no limits? Freedom of speech is a constitutional right given to every citizen, entitling them to voice their†¦show more content†¦In response, the Superintendent issued a ban on all such anti-religious speech. Ironically, the cheerleaders meant no harm, obviously the banner was against a school whose mascot was a Native American. The cheerleaders in turn, sued the school district to preserve their rights to free speech, which resulted in an injunction allowing them to display the banner. â€Å"Free speech prevailed, reminding us of the well-established principle that students do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate† (Mateer). In a case such as this, where no one was being harmed, an advocacy group came out and stated that the banner indeed racially targeted a group of individuals, when in fact it was not doing anything of the sort. Things like this will always happen, it does not matter if boundaries are placed on the freedom of speech clause or not, there will always be a way to get around it unless the government says â€Å"no one has any freedom of speech.† In this day and age, we are subject to many instances of harmful hate speech, even if it is not directed toward us. The current legal standing in the United States state that the government cannot limit speech on the basis of its content. Thus, speech cannot be censored because its message is racist, religious, sexist, or inspirational. While the prevailing attitude in the American judicialShow MoreRelatedFree Speech vs. Hate Speech Essay1362 Words   |  6 Pageshistory, the United States Constitution has been put to the test over the issue of free speech. The First Amendment states, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Even though free speech is one of the core American values proudly embedded in each citizen, some poopAmericansRead MoreFree Speech Vs Hate Speech Essay769 Words   |  4 PagesFree speech versus hate speech is a very widespread debate as there are convincing arguments on both sides that are very compelling. Although there a re many points commonly used to back up the argument that are false and inaccurate. All Americans have a right to freedom of religion, speech, press, petition, and assembly as depicted in the first amendment, but the exceptions to freedom of speech have never directly been acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court. The common slippery-slope argument forRead MoreThe Freedom Of Hate Speech Is Not Freedom Speech1143 Words   |  5 PagesHate Speech is not Freedom Speech Between August 11th and August 12th of 2017, the world watched the disturbance news of what was going on in Charlottesville, Virginia. The horrific videos and images left the world in shock. Groups of white supremacy, nationalists, hitler youths marched in unison screaming, â€Å"White lives matter! Blood and Soils! You will not replace us! Jews will not replace us!† More groups enraged their voices across Virginia to scream hate speech to other races. They threatenedRead MoreHate Speech1536 Words   |  7 PagesHate Speech Essay In the first amendment of the United States constitution, American citizens are guaranteed the right to free speech. This is a fundamental right of American law, and one of the foundations of the U.S. Constitution. It is also the breeding ground for one of the most widely debated issues in America: What, if any, measures should be put into place to regulate hateful language? Most people will agree under one definition or another that hate speech is a socially deviant activityRead MorePaper on Freedom for the Thought That We Hate825 Words   |  4 PagesPaper on Freedom for the Thought that we Hate In the book Freedom for the Thought that we Hate, author Anthony Lewis takes a simply phrased law, the First Amendment and shows how complex freedom of speech really is once put into the real world of freedom, as we know it. He shows through his rejections of absolutism, strong support towards freedom restriction, and objective analysis of Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, that the United States press is unlike any other in the world. Lewis rejectsRead MoreSpeech On Freedom Of Speech1484 Words   |  6 Pagesof Speech Professor Hunt Culver Stockton College Freedom of Speech Americans have many freedoms that people in other countries can only wish they had. Just imagine a life where you could possibly be killed for speaking your mind and stating your opinion, other countries are living lives like that. According to Katy Davis, The United States ratified the first amendment on December 15th 1791 (Davis, n.d). We as a country don’t know where the government draws the line between hate speechRead MoreWe Must Stop Hate Speech1709 Words   |  7 Pages During the turbulent tides of the 2016 election, the question of whether or not hate speech is protected under the First Amendment has been brought up multiple times. Hate speech is defined by the American Bar Association as â€Å"speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits.† One side argues that hateful comments should not and are not protected due to the oppression they bring. After all, why wouldRead More The Controversy Over Internet Censorship Essay1152 Words   |  5 Pagescan be accessed at the touch of a button: anything from encyclopedias, to surveys and essays, to articles from magazines, and adult sites.   Anyone who pays for their Internet service is usually offered space for his or her own web page, and even many free services provide space for personal web pages.   All of this available space can be used for any number of reasons: posting newsletters for community groups, advertising for businesses, or just voicing one’s opinion.   For those of us who know how toRead More Censorship and the Internet Essay1213 Words   |  5 Pagesgreater space for free expression in countries where traditional broadcast and print media are restricted† (64). Free expression is a very guarded privilege to United States citizens. Private citizens and businesses can censor what is accessed on their computers to protect themselves, so why would it not be acce ptable for the government to censor what is accessed in order to protect the citizens of the United States of America. Some believe this is an infringement of free speech, while others findRead MoreFree Speech : The Importance Of The Freedom Of Speech1079 Words   |  5 PagesFree speech in my mind, should be universally protected, except when that speech turns into hate against any particular minority and incites violence that is not needed for the safety of the public at large. Freedom of speech serves to be a fundamental democratic right that affords every citizen to participate in the United States constitutional democracy. It is a vital tool because it can be used by every person, rich, poor, black or white, to voice their concerns and rejections of the federal or