Banning A Hated Word Response

In the article, “Should a Hated Word Be Banned?” Rabbi Dov Lipman says that “every country has to establish certain value-based limits” in her speech. My opinion on this controversy is that I do not agree.

            If every country were to establish value-based limits, it would take away freedom of speech. No matter how hated a word might be; banning it wouldn’t be a solution to the issue. For example, in the article it says, “The First Amendment protects freedom of expression even if the views expressed are extremely offensive to most people.” I believe that the First Amendment is correct and that freedom of speech should not be overlooked.

            Another reason I do not agree with Lipman’s statement is because everyone has different values/beliefs. For example, in the text Fuchs states, “You measure the freedom of speech in a democratic country in the freedom to say these disturbing and annoying things, not in what is nice and pleasant to hear.” Whether you believe that a certain belief, opinion, or a certain word that someone says is adequate or inadequate, it should be respected.

            In conclusion, I disagree with Lipman’s statement. A country should not be in charge of what people are allowed to say or believe in because of freedom of speech. In addition, different people have different values and insights towards certain things, and whether agreeable or non agreeable, you have to respect their opinions. 

Watching You (Response)

            In an article called, "Watching You" in Upfront Magazine, by Patricia Smith, it talks about how the government is going against our privacy and watching us in order to protect us from deadly threats. The U.S government has been "secretly collecting Americans' telephone records and tracking foreigners over sites like Yahoo and Facebook." I think that it is wrong for the government to be doing this.
          It's violating Americans' privacy. For example, in the text it says, "But this spring's news that the U.S. government has been secretly collecting Americans' telephone records and tracking foreigners over seas on sites like Yahoo and Facebook has raised questions  about how much privacy is worth sacrificing to keep the nation safe." I don't think that it's right that the government can see what we put on social media even though we think that it's private.

         It's also violating the Fourth Amendment. For example, in the text it says, "the idea of a right to privacy comes from the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which protects against 'unreasonable searches and seizures'."I don't think that the government should be allowed to not follow the Fourth Amendment.

        In conclusion, I agree that the government should find ways to protect us from dangers such as terrorists, however, I don't think that our privacy should be violated through social media and phone records in order to do that,