Mediaboss Marketing

Internet Marketing & WordPress Training Services SEO - Plans & Pricing

We offer some of the best competitive one time SEO packages in the industry if you or your staff do not have the time or resources to do SEO yourself. The benefits of our one time SEO packages includes not having to sign a long term annual contract or binding agreement,..

SEO Training Services offers a complete range of web development services using PHP scripts or WordPress website design services. We provide customized web based solutions for all types of businesses that benefit from the state of the art technology in web design,..

SeoTrainingService.com is the local leading Phoenix SEO training company and unlike the competition that charges you $1097 for a USB stick for chalkboard style SEO training, we are different and will save you money.We have helped hundreds of business owners and companies achieve...

My name is Richard Harbeson, as an SEO consultant and former account manager for a top 20 SEO company, I have had the pleasure of helping businesses with first page search engine results for over 14 years. Learn how to attain top organic search engine results using the latest 2015 SEO training techniques with the leading internet marketing company in Arizona. We offer local SEO classes in Phoenix and specialize in training employees, marketing staff or even yourself to do internet marketing from the comfort of your home or office. Sign up today to become a Phoenix SEO expert to outrank the competition online with a satisfaction guarantee.

Go here to read the rest:
Phoenix SEO Training Consultant Company - SeoTrainingService

First of all, my opponent is trying to turn this debate into a moral issue. Morality should never be the basis of government. Justice and fairness should be.

Pro, argues that this debate is no about "Can the government censor?" but about "Should they?" As I stated previously no they shouldn't. Just because something is allowed, doesn't mean we should do it. I can stuff my face with 10 slices of pizza, does it mean I should? No

Pro, also mentioned I have not given example why censorship is bad. As you can read, I did.

I can give a list why censorship is bad in all corners. Here we go.

1. Dictators use censorship to promote a flattering image of themselves and for removing any information that goes against them. Whose to say the government can't do this too?

2. Political parties around the world already use media censorship for their own benefit. It stifles the opposition, broadcasting only a particular point of view.

3. Censorship makes us believe what were are told, not what we are not. Why do conspiracy theorists exist? Because they believe the government isn't telling us something.

4. Area 51, 9/11, New World Order. Do you really think the gorvernment should keep all those things censored.

5. It makes the US complete hyprocite. The Constitution says we have Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion, Petition and Protest, so why does the gorvernment censor this? For there own benefit.

Thank you. By the way, the voters can vote for whoever they want. Vote whatever you like! 🙂

As to his rebuttals, they are also contradictory. I have not said that he did not give instances of bad censorship, I merely pointed out that a few bad examples does not imply that censorship in all circumstances is immoral. I would like to point out that my opponent has done nothing to refute my ethical system of utilitarianism or propose one of his own that is not logically contradictory. Under my ethical system, government should censor when the results of said censorship maximize happiness or minimize pain. Until my opponent addresses this point, I should be considered the winner.

See the article here:
Debate Argument: Censorship | Debate.org

Censorship is when an authority (such as a government or religion) cuts out or suppresses communication.

This has been done widely. All countries, religions and societies have their limits as to what can be said, or written or communication by art or nowadays by computer.

Certain facts are changed or removed on purpose. This may be done because it is considered wrong, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or other authority. This can be done for different reasons.

A censor is a person whose job is to look at all types of media and remove material. There are many reasons to censor something, like protecting military secrets, stopping immoral or anti-religious works, or keeping political power. Censorship is almost always used as an insult, and there is much debate over what censorship is and when it is okay.

When there is freedom of speech and freedom of the press, most information can published. However, even in developed countries with much freedom of the press, there are some things that cannot be published. For example, journalists are usually not allowed to publish many secrets about the military, like where troops will be sent on a mission. Pornography is censored in some countries because it is seen as not moral. For these reasons, the government might arrest anyone who publishes it.

Most often things are censored for one or more of the following reasons:

There is much debate about when censorship should be allowed. For example, U.S. President Richard Nixon censored the New York Times when they tried to publish articles about the Pentagon Papers, a group of classified military documents that showed that Nixon and the military lied about the Vietnam War. The Supreme Court in New York Times Co v. United States overturned the censorship, saying that Nixon had not shown it would be dangerous to the military, just embarrassing. In other countries, journalists and bloggers (who are usually not seen as journalists) are sometimes arrested for saying bad things about the government. In Egypt, Kareem Amer was famously arrested for insulting Islam and calling the president of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, a dictator. [2]

Governments are not the only ones who censor information. For example, when the history department at Middlebury College did not allow professors to accept Wikipedia as a source in papers, some said it was censorship.[3] This was because the department was telling professors (who usually have academic freedom) what works they should and should not accept. Sometimes, a group or a website will not allow some facts, articles, and pictures that they do not think should be seen. There is much debate over the difference between censorship and editing, that is, deciding what should or should not be published.

Go here to see the original:
Censorship - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Censorship

Today I would like to talk about

censorship. Censorship is the removal of information from the public. Today censorship is a

phase of social control. It is becoming more and more common all over the world today. It

reaches as far as political power and public opinion. Often censorship is undertaken by

governments. Censorship is closely tied in as a concept with freedom of speech and other forms

of human expression. The censorship of opinion for the most part was restricted to the control

of speech rather than of printing. The censorship of free speech attempted to control the

audience. The purpose of this speech is to give information regarding censorship knowledge.

Censorship occurs when expressive materials, like books, magazines, films and videos, or works

of art, are removed or kept from the public. Censorship also occurs when materials are

restricted to particular audiences, based on their age or other characteristics. A few types of

censorship are political, religious, and the the censorship of music, but there are many more.

Political censorship occurs when the government conceals secrets from their citizens, while

religious censorship is when any material of a certain faith is removed. This often involves a

dominant religion forcing limitations on less dominant ones. Many musicians protested against

censorship in music and pushed for more freedom of expression. Considerable amounts of music

has been banned since the 1950's all the way to the present. One example is that

many states in the U.S. decided to make it illegal for selling N.W.A.'s Straight Outta Compton

album and the fines for catching anyone would go from $10,00 to $100,00 depending on how

many minors were involved.

When a society has freedom, citizens can collect and distribute any information they want

without any restraints. Another example is that in the Canadian Charter of Rights and

Freedoms, it clearly states that Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: the

freedom of thought, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of

communication." which means that this material in any form cannot be altered by the government

in any way. Also, citizens have the right to access information in all forms of media to be able to

watch, read or listen to whatever they want. The concept of freedom involves protecting the

rights of all individuals to pursue the types of information and to read anything that interests

them. The society has the right to voice opinions and try to persuade others to adopt their

opinions. Censorship believes that certain materials are too offensive, or present ideas that are

too hateful and destructive to society, that they simply must not be shown to the public. I think

everyone has a voice and an opinion and unfortunately, sometimes their voice is censored and

denied the right to express their opinion because it is different. I think censorship is wrong

because it denies an individual the chance to be heard simply because they have different ideas.

The only solution to the problem is to voice our opinion.

See the article here:
Against Censorship :: essays research papers

The Vermont senator said Clinton is lashing out -- attacking him on guns, taxes and more -- because polls show their race having tightened in Iowa while Sanders has maintained a narrow lead in New Hampshire.

"Secretary Clinton and her campaign is in serious trouble," Sanders told reporters Monday after a campaign stop in Pleasantville, Iowa.

"And I think a candidate who was originally thought to be the anointed candidate, the inevitable candidate, is now locked in a very difficult race here in Iowa and in New Hampshire," Sanders said. "So obviously in that scenario what people do is start attacking. Suddenly Bernie Sanders is not a nice guy. That is not surprising when you have a Clinton campaign that is now in trouble and now understands that they can lose."

Sanders offered a similar take later at the Iowa Brown and Black Forum. When Sanders was asked if he has noticed that Clinton is attacking him harder and more often, he offered a mischievous "yes."

"It could be that the inevitable candidate for the Democratic nomination may not be so inevitable today," he said.

It's Sanders' antidote to Clinton's "electability" argument. His comment bring to mind her failure to capture the Democratic nomination in 2008, and allude to polls that show Sanders with a real shot at winning in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Sanders is benefiting from a base of supporters that is more enthusiastic than Clinton's -- and he got an unexpected boost from Vice President Joe Biden, who said Sanders has credibility on the issue of income inequality.

"Bernie is speaking to a yearning that is deep and real. And he has credibility on it," Biden said during an interview with CNN chief political analyst Gloria Borger.

"It's relatively new for Hillary to talk about that," Biden continued, acknowledging that Clinton has "come forward with some really thoughtful approaches to deal with the issue" of income inequality.

"Hillary's focus has been other things up to now, and that's been Bernie's -- no one questions Bernie's authenticity on those issues," he said.

Sanders' remarks come after an NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist University poll showed Clinton with just a 48% to 45% lead among likely Iowa caucus-goers.

"Our major problem has been I am running against a candidate who was perceived to be the inevitable nominee, right?" Sanders told CNN's Brianna Keilar in between campaign stops in Iowa. "And her name recognition is phenomenal, almost everybody knows who she is, that wasn't the case with me. So we started off in national polls at 3 percent. Well, we've come a very long way."

Sanders said he was proud of the work his team is doing in both Iowa and New Hampshire.

"I think we have a real chance of winning both of those states," he said. "I think we're doing a lot better in Nevada and in South Carolina than people think and if we do well in all of those states, I think we have a real path to victory for the Democratic nomination and I think then we can win the general election."

Clinton, meanwhile, has attacked Sanders on guns in recent days, blasting him for voting for a bill -- while Sanders, Clinton and President Barack Obama were all still in the Senate -- that protected gun manufacturers from liability when their firearms are used in crimes.

"I was there, I voted against it. Sen. Obama was there, he voted against it. And Sanders voted for it," Clinton said of the liability bill in a meeting with the Des Moines Register's editorial board Monday. "And it was the biggest request by the NRA and related gun lobby actor to the Congress and I think and I know the President wants to revisit that as well."

Sanders stood by his vote Sunday on ABC's "This Week" but said he would "revise" parts of the bill.

The debate gun debate continued on the campaign trail Monday and Tuesday.

At the Iowa Brown and Black Forum, Sanders wouldn't back away from that vote, saying: "It's not a mistake. Like many pieces of legislation, it is complicated."

Clinton's campaign and allies were quick to pounce, accusing Sanders of doubling down on his support for a bill that was championed at the time by the National Rifle Association.

"I think most Americans think it was a mistake and wish he would admit it," said Steve Benjamin, mayor of Columbia, South Carolina, and a Clinton supporter, after the debate.

In Tuesday in Ames, Clinton hammered Sanders, saying she has a long history of working -- with success -- to take on issues like income inequality and gun control.

"Don't talk to me about standing up to corporate interests and big powers," she said, in a comment directed at Sanders. "I've got the scars to show for it -- and I am proud of every single one."

CNN's Tom LoBianco and Dan Merica contributed to this report.

View original post here:
Bernie Sanders: Hillary Clinton 'in serious trouble ...