Too Tired to Make a Witty Headline

1. Freedom of Speech:  How important is it?  Does the freedom go "too far"?  What areas of speech should not be protected?

            The freedom of speech had been a near and dear aspect of American life. We believe that we have the right to say whatever we want about whatever topic we wish to talk, rant, rave, and criticize about. This liberty to talk freely has been hard fought for, and is even more special and important when looking at other areas of the world which limit the ability to speak out publicly. And yet, there are instances in which some people believe that the freedom of speech does go too far. Some would ask the question of “Should we allow the racist bigots of the world spew their twisted and untrue opinions because they believe it to be their right? What right do they have if all they will say is lies?” Others would counter it, saying that everyone, and that does include everyone, has a right to voice their opinions and beliefs, even if it runs contrary to most other human beings. In the United States, with the courts on the local level to the federal level now allowing a broader amount of freedom of speech, still believes that some speech should be unprotected. Hate speeches and speeches promoting any violence or unlawfulness should not be permitted, as they aim to try to entice listeners to commit violent acts of crime against people or places. In doing so, that would intrude on the targeted person or group of people’s freedom. However, trying to control such acts of speech is increasingly hard, since the Internet serves a lovely base to attack people and stay safe in front of a computer screen. Other than that, most other areas of speech should be protected. I should be able to criticize the government or a business or another person, because it is my right. It doesn’t mean that my opinions are correct in anyway, like in this blog, but it does at least make me feel better to be heard.

2. Freedom of Religion:  Is separation of church and state necessary?  Why or why not?

The separation of church and state is necessary in certain aspects. While being a Christian myself, I feel as though if the state and church became too intertwined with one another, that the church may end up influencing the state too much. Take Islamic countries with strict sharia laws such as Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. To commit blasphemy in these countries is to, at the maximum, be sentenced to death. Blasphemy! Think back on all the times you had said something that was blasphemous, all the times you may have taken God’s name in vain. That could have earned you a death sentence. As well, in the United States, there is a large variation of religions. To have one religion, no matter what it is, rule the state is unfair to all the other religions being practiced. Now, I’m not calling for a ban on all religious things that could intersect anything that the government has to do with- as it’s probably impossible- but I do think that there should be equal consideration for all religions. It’s the only way to be fair. Besides, religion is different to everyone, even if they claim to be a part of the same religion. It is sacred and dear to a person, one of the most important parts about them. It wouldn’t make sense to try to elevate one faith above them all, in a government stand point at least.

3. Criminal Procedure:  Are defendant's rights crucial to our system of government?  Why or why not?  Many argue that defendants have too many rights - do you agree?  Why or why not?

Defendant’s rights are crucial to our system of government. The term “innocent until proven guilty” justifies that. No matter what people believe, a person is considered guilty until proven guilty by a jury of their peers (or unless they give a full confessional before that comes). And until then, they should have rights just as any other innocent person when being served in a court of law. As well, the rights given to a defendant are needed when being accused of a crime. Many people are ignorant of the inner workings of the law and court processes (such as myself), and, especially in high profile cases such as murder, cannot defend themselves properly against seasoned a prosecutioner, and so needs an attorney to give them a fighting chance- even if they did commit the crime in question. And I think that defendants have as much rights as they need to a fair trial. A right to a public, speedy, or jury trial, a right to an attorney and adequately represented, and the right to not be placed in double-jeopardy are by no means giving them the whole world. Now the ways to get out of a guilty verdict may seem unfair, but the people running around the courts are lawyers. They find loopholes to help their case- even if it does mean that they can get the guilty verdict thrown out by the fact that the attorney may assign a law school intern in his place while he leaves the court while the trial is in session or other reasons that seem strange and desperate. 

I commented on Gabriel Miller, Jessica Tucker, and Albert Munoz’s blogs.