Intelligent Design

The proliferation of methods to deliver our ideas and more on the way, has been the First Amendment and are interpreted and reinterpreted, to provide protection against the freedom of speech exercised by others. Many of us grew up hearing or saying: “Sticks and Stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me.” Today we begin to respond to the fallacy of this mockery of our courts and look to take measures to limit those things that could cause such a reaction. To express our freedom, our ideas and opinions that may be the risk in the future, as we in the 21st Century research and amidst threats of ethnic equality and cultural input.

Our founding fathers wrote a modification first optimistic of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which reads: “Congress shall make no law, an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise, or the freedom of speech or the press or the right of people to peaceful assembly and the government for a complaint “(United States Bill of Rights) restitution petition. Although the apparent intent was to protect the liberties of the people from the tyranny of big government, it is clear that the makers wisely wants to leave the interpretation of these freedoms in every generation.

It should be noted that today as never before, the interpretations of these freedoms is subject to many factors such as social anxiety, equality, Homeland Security and the Government, and equity are.

Fear leads to acts of sedition in time of war, a desire for the same freedoms of speech and freedom of assembly opened in the fight for equality. Many felt some limits on the freedoms of others exceeded, as discussed in the equal rights movements throughout the country, for example. The themes have changed. How can we ensure that our freedom of speech and press, while respecting and safeguarding the rights of those who may oppose our views and beliefs?

These are questions that we as a society forced, so that we never thought that we merge the old ideals are confronted with new technologies.

With almost 75% of our children have access to computers, new issues of freedom of expression are highlighted. Grown in a recent case before the Supreme Court of Florida Psychological abuse is an issue. Before laws can be adopted “psychological violence” to consider the term to be defined and an indication of the complexity in the courts in interpreting the First Amendment. Cyber-bullying has become the new form of abuse. Interfere with some countries, lobbying for legislation, we took the bat on the street and in the media world. A recent survey by iSafe, a California nonprofit, works that, with schools and other organizations will improve the security of the Internet, “that 42% of children being bullied online reports. To encourage rather than the parents, a more active role in limiting the use Internet access at home during the lessons their children to accept the consequences of such behavior, we are now patrolling our government personal computer.

Questions about access to pornography to minors over the Internet is another important concern today. Attempts to regulate pornography on the Internet led to the Federal Communications Decency Act of 1996. This law prohibits the transfer of knowledge indecent messages to minors. Disputed the bill and another was hit by the U.S. Supreme Court. Transmission and display of modesty offensive provisions were ruled clear limit to free speech by the First Amendment guarantees too. Subsequent attempts to legislation such as the child on line Protection Act (COPA) of 1998 was unconstitutional and by the protection of children on the Internet Act (CIPA) of 2000, which was examined by the Court, the Constitutional Court. However, continue to restrict to consider the creation of legislation and efforts to focus the use of pornography in the new mass media forums.

Teachers and school principals have long been the subject of prosecution in violation of the First Amendment was. Topics such as length of hair or skirts in the 60s and 70s have given way to questions of the logo and other phrases on clothing. For years, Harper v. Poway Unified School District, the appellate court upheld the lower court’s decision, which confirms the prohibition of school text on the shirt of the student. The assumption was that the slogan detrimental to the T-shirt on some students claim the right to limitation was because it “collides to be safe and be left alone with the rights of other students” Another First Freedom change on the schools in their struggle with the implications of teaching creationism and / or development in the classroom.

A recent ruling against “intelligent design” teaching in schools is always maintained. Originally from the Scopes Monkey Trial on issues of religion, science and education focused, but today, the battle between creationists and evolutionists continue to be entitled to any other religion be taught in combination or not.

In another scenario, the real world, many believe that should the development of computer viruses be illegal, because the damage that these viruses. These people claim that there is a clear and present danger in such software. Consider, however, to test the programmer who creates a virus, a machine or an anti-virus software. It was argued that if no information is undesirable or potentially dangerous by the laws, that there is a potential for abuse by the powerful.

Spam is considered unsolicited e-mails advertising and other annoying programs in relation to the security of computers and Internet security issues. Introduced in order to check a few years ago, the Can Spam Act of 2003 was approved and promulgated in December 2003. This act is an attempt to control unsolicited commercial electronic messages, and the arguments in the face of the bomb by e-mail, that the legislation be advertised more.

While these are just some of the questions we face today with regard to the protection of our freedoms under the First Amendment, while removing the sources of anxiety and discomfort, we would be remiss if we neglected to other media and the problems that we . watch For example, the Act Junk Fax Prevention in 2005, adopted and made this fact, it is legal for unsolicited materials sent to a fax machine without permission, and only under the condition that the announcement of an “opt-out” appeared on the fax and the sender was speaking at once to the receiver. It is essentially a law that the property rights of owners of fax sent to cover the costs for paper and ink every fax to violate them must be paid. Is it fair, and it is really to protect the freedoms of the receptors?

Additional questions may be on the horizon that we in turn pass the cell phone technology. If the participants who pay in most cases, the incoming and outgoing calls, suddenly begins to call and receive calls, what recourse he or she is, and what are the rights of counsel shall be addressed? In addition, we see story after story in the news about disagreements over the rights of photographers by their subjects and the costumes are trying to force journalists to publish their source of information.

As we embark on a new era of mass media attention in a global community, we are probably still working on our ideas about rights under the First Amendment as our forefathers intended. Their vision has allowed us a document and the changes that cause us to interpret his intentions to meet the needs of our time.

While we are on points of law, or the implementation of moral and ethical rights and our obligations under our Constitution and Bill of Rights, especially the First Amendment can not agree, we must if we are to continue as a free and democratic nation, ready to to defend the rights of everyone to bring their ideas to express, even if we disagree with these ideas.

With the expansion of the company to a truly global community with discussions on a new world order and the adoption of the Homeland Security Act, when compiled and transmitted in a cloud of fear, we must always be diligent in our quest for fair laws in our desire for protection for our children and ourselves to realize itself, and the stability of the freedoms granted to us guaranteed by the Constitution.