Thus how can a government composed of the people be entrusted with the responsible to make good judgment.
Personal opinion, this negates your argument. The government is composed of our elected leaders and intellectual betters. Because this is a democracy (imsofullofit) the majority has a say in what is "right" and "wrong." Right and wrong are simply semantics and diversionary tactics for opinion.
This is one isolated incident. Unfortunately not. There has been more than one documented case of a person behaving so stupidly, it dropped the collective IQ of the general populace. We do NOT, in fact, ask the government to save us from each other- time and time again we have shown that laws have been instated to save us from ourselves. Examples: the seat belt & helmet laws.
Also by stating that individuals who dress in this manner or listen to certain types of music you are degrading their culture, indirectly exclaiming yours to be superior.
You're lacking an adjective, thus your argument is null and void. "music you are" it should read "music are ____, you are..."
My culture may or may not be superior, you cannot base an argument on that which I have not said. ;)
Interpretive implications notwithstanding, the argument is whether or not government should impose restrictions on media. Some call this censorship, but one could also argue that by posting speed guidelines, they are also censoring your right to personal expression by driving in a manner which some consider "too fast."
You have to wonder, when does raising the speed limit stop? When there's no speed limit at all? And no punishment for driving recklessly? Explicit language and violence in mass media is completely unregulated aside from ooh little stickers warning people what they're about to buy MAY be offensive.
You can't scream "FIRE" in a crowded movie theatre- is that censorship or just good judgement? Why, then, should "let's go kill cops" be censorship instead of good judgement?
Re: Stop the Wiggas!
Personal opinion, this negates your argument. The government is composed of our elected leaders and intellectual betters. Because this is a democracy (imsofullofit) the majority has a say in what is "right" and "wrong." Right and wrong are simply semantics and diversionary tactics for opinion.
This is one isolated incident.
Unfortunately not. There has been more than one documented case of a person behaving so stupidly, it dropped the collective IQ of the general populace. We do NOT, in fact, ask the government to save us from each other- time and time again we have shown that laws have been instated to save us from ourselves. Examples: the seat belt & helmet laws.
Also by stating that individuals who dress in this manner or listen to certain types of music you are degrading their culture, indirectly exclaiming yours to be superior.
You're lacking an adjective, thus your argument is null and void.
"music you are"
it should read "music are ____, you are..."
My culture may or may not be superior, you cannot base an argument on that which I have not said. ;)
Interpretive implications notwithstanding, the argument is whether or not government should impose restrictions on media. Some call this censorship, but one could also argue that by posting speed guidelines, they are also censoring your right to personal expression by driving in a manner which some consider "too fast."
You have to wonder, when does raising the speed limit stop? When there's no speed limit at all? And no punishment for driving recklessly? Explicit language and violence in mass media is completely unregulated aside from ooh little stickers warning people what they're about to buy MAY be offensive.
You can't scream "FIRE" in a crowded movie theatre- is that censorship or just good judgement?
Why, then, should "let's go kill cops" be censorship instead of good judgement?
It's all semantics.
Karina Black, Ravenclaw