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. 

Where Your Cell Phone Goes to Die (Response)

        In an article in Upfront Magazine, it talks about how our e-waste (electronic waste) is being  

given to other countries and is not being recycled properly. I think that it is wrong for electronic

manufacturers to pay developing countries to take the United State's waste.

        The electronic waste can affect people. For example in the text it says, "In far-flung, mostly

impoverished places in Ghana, India, and China....of children inhaling the smoke from phone casings

as they identify and separate different kinds of plastics for recyclers." And also in the text it says, "most

scientists agree that exposure poses serious health risks, especially to pregnant women and

children....[and] can cause irreversible neurological damage and threaten the development of a child."

The waste can affect people in terrible ways and can put them at risk. It's not right that the United

State's waste is causing this.

         Also, the e-waste is not being recycled properly. For example in the article it says, "Changes in

the way manufacturers glue, screw, and solder components together would make it easier to dismantle

discarded phones and thus reduce the risks posed by crude recycling techniques, like those employed

by children in Ghana." If we don't help change the way that we recycle our e-waste, it can affect our

environment, hurting us. As the quote states, making the components of the electronics easier to

dismantle could help us recycle better. If we did this and recycled the waste on our own, it could help

our environment and the people being affected by the e-waste in the places that the United States is

sending our waste to.

          In conclusion, I think that wrong for manufacturers to be paying other countries to take the

Unites States' e-waste. It affects the people in the countries that the e-waste is being sent to and it is not

being recycled properly. We should recycle our e-waste in the U.S.  If we recycled our e-waste on our

own, it would help the people and the environment.