Mediaboss Marketing

Internet Censorship Debate

Censorship refers to any action taken by a society to control access to ideas and information. Throughout history, many different types of societies, including democracies, have used censorship in various ways. The issue is increasingly important due to the rapid development of new communication technology. As innovators continue to create new ways for people to share information, many people are now arguing over the issue of censorship.

For the proponents of censorship, restricting the access of information is something that can provide benefits to society. By censoring pornography on the internet, children are less likely to encounter it. By censoring certain types of images and videos, society can prevent offensive or vulgar material from offending those that it targets. For example, some would argue that society should censor material that is insulting to a particular religion in order to maintain societal harmony. In this way, censorship is viewed as a way to protect society as a whole or certain segments of society from material that is seen as offensive or damaging.

Some argue that censorship is necessary to preserve national security. Without using any kind of censorship, they argue that it is impossible to maintain the secrecy of information necessary for protecting the nation. For this purpose, censorship protects a state's military or security secrets from its enemies who can use that information against the state.

Those who are against censorship argue that the practice limits the freedoms of speech, the press and expression and that these limitations are ultimately a detriment to society. By preventing free access to information, it is argued that society is fostering ignorance in its citizens. Through this ignorance, citizens are more easily controlled by special interest groups, and groups that are able to take power are able to use censorship to maintain themselves. Additionally, they argue that censorship limits a society's ability to advance in its understanding of the world.

Another main issue for those who are against censorship is a history of censorship abuse. Those who argue against censorship can point to a number of examples of dictators who used censorship to create flattering yet untrue images of themselves for the purpose of maintaining control over a society. They argue that people should control the government instead of the government controlling its people.

See the original post here:
Internet Censorship Debate | Debate.org

By Austin Cline

Updated September 30, 2014.

What is Godless Liberalism?

Godless liberalism should be defined as a liberal or progressive political perspective which doesnt rely on gods, divine revelation, or religion for its values, ideas, or policies. Because liberalism is hated by Americas Christian Right, and godlessness is hated even more, the label godless liberalism is usually used as a form of attack or insult. The label must be reclaimed because there is nothing about godlessness, liberalism, or the combination which deserves derision or hostility.

Christian Right vs. Godless Liberalism:

The nature of godless liberalism can be difficult to understand because of how frequently the label is misused by the Christian Right in America. According to them, all liberals are godless liberals because they dont adhere to a conservative evangelical or fundamentalist Christianity. Only conservative political policies are regarded as compatible with Christianity; therefore, all other policies are anti-Christian, anti-religious, and anti-God. Advocates are all thus godless liberals.

Who Are Godless Liberals?

If not all liberals or everyone opposed to contemporary American conservative policies is a godless liberal, then who are godless liberals?

Godless liberals base their liberal or progressive political policies on philosophical considerations independent of religion. Some liberals base their political positions explicitly on their religious values and religious beliefs, so they cant be considered godless liberals even if they are mistaken about what follows from their religion.

Are Godless Liberals All Atheists?

Whether godless liberals are atheists depends upon what the adjective godless is modifying: the person or their liberalism.

If it modifies the person, then they are atheists because being godless is what atheism means. If it modifies their liberalism, perhaps they arent all atheists. Its unlikely for religious believers to have political positions independent of their religious values, but not all theists are devoutly religious.

Is Godless Liberalism anti-Religion?

For people who see their god or their religion as the source of all order and morality, godless liberalism may be treated as impossible or even as a threat. The fact that godless liberals do not derive their political positions from religious doctrine does not make them anti-religious, though.

They may personally be anti-religion, but politically they may not be indeed, they may have no problem with making common cause with religious liberals.

What Do Godless Liberals Believe?

Godless liberals are, naturally, politically liberal but there is as much variety in their political positions as there are among liberals generally. Most will be pro-choice and anti-death penalty, for example, but not all are. Godless liberals even disagree on the value of religion and the role religion should have in society. They are not a monolithic force within liberal circles. If you want to know what a godless liberal believes, you have to ask.

Godless Liberalism and the Separation of Church and State:

Godless liberals may agree or disagree on a wide variety of political positions, but one common position is that church and state should be strictly separated. Godless liberals oppose basing public policy and civil laws on any religious doctrines or dogmas. This puts them in conflict with both the Christian Right and some liberal religious believers. Its one thing if someones position is influenced by religious values, but quite another to base a law on those values.

Godless Liberals and Liberal Believers:

That godless liberals do not use religious doctrines as a basis for political decisions doesnt prevent them from working with other liberals and progressives who do. One may oppose the death penalty for non-religious reasons and the other may oppose it for religious reasons, but both can work together to end capital punishment with little or not conflict. It all depends, probably, on how much the religious believer pushes their religious doctrines as the basis for political action.

What is the Basis for Godless Liberalism?

Its easy to say that godless liberalism isnt based on any religion or set of religious doctrines, but its harder to say what godless liberals do base their political beliefs on because there are so many non-religious philosophical systems. Some are humanists, some are objectivists, and some are communists. Many rely heavily on science and the scientific method because they have a strong orientation towards the sciences. If you want to know more, you have to ask.

Godless Liberalism as Political Smear:

Its not just uncommon for people to openly and proudly describe themselves as godless liberals, its almost unheard of. The most common context for the labels godless liberalism and godless liberals is a political attack from religious conservatives. For them, the concept of godless liberalism covers everything they think is wrong with modernity: the loss of religious traditions and Christian privileges, sexual license (which includes abortion, homosexuality, pornography, contraceptives, feminism, etc.), the separation of church and state, the triumph of science over superstition, and so forth.

When religious conservatives attack something in society, politics, or law which they dont like, theres a good chance that they will attribute the problem to godless liberals. Being godless, they fail to acknowledge or accept the commands which God expects everyone to follow. They have no reason to be moral, and thus their political positions lack a moral or divine foundation necessary to a well-ordered society.

The use of the word liberal is almost redundant from their perspective because its difficult for them to conceive of anyone adopting the correct conservative positions without a religious basis (and its true that godless conservatives are less common than godless liberals). Many act as though anyone who is liberal must necessarily be godless because no one who adopts liberal positions can possibly be a real Christian.

Many Democrats have sought to disassociate themselves from the label, treating it like the label "homosexual" was once treated. This is unfortunate because being a godless liberal is not inherently bad. There is nothing wrong with basing ones politics on something other than religion and there is nothing wrong with not being religious. When Democrats act as though godless liberal is bad, they lend credence to the prejudices of the Christian Right. Democrats should embrace godless liberals right alongside religious liberals.

Read the original here:
Godless Liberalism, Godless Liberals, and American Politics

The actions are aimed at allowing millions of undocumented immigrants to apply for programs that could make them eligible for work authorization and associated benefits.

The President unveiled the programs over a year ago, but federal courts blocked implementation in response to a challenge brought by Texas and 25 other states. Since then, the nearly 4.3 million immigrants who would have been eligible have been caught in legal limbo.

The Supreme Court which already has a docket bursting with consequential issues will likely rule on the case by early summer. If the Court greenlights the programs that are considered a centerpiece of the President's second term, they will go into effect before he leaves office.

RELATED: How Trump's deportation plan failed 62 years ago

The Supreme Court's ruling will come down in the midst of the presidential campaign and will settle an issue that has become a talking point for Republican candidates who say that the President exceeded his authority when he announced the programs.

At issue is the implementation of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) aimed at the approximately 4.3 million undocumented immigrants who are parents of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents, as well as an expansion of the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) targeting teenagers and young adults who were born outside of the U.S. but raised in the country.

The President's actions allow eligible participants to obtain temporary lawful presence and apply for work authorization as well as some associated benefits.

"Millions of families have waited nearly a year for these programs to take effect," said Karen Tumlin of the National Immigration Law Center. "They will now get a full day in court as the nation's highest court hears this case of tremendous moral and legal importance."

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who has been leading the charge in court against the Obama administration, said that the unilateral actions are unconstitutional and that the administration also violated the Administrative Procedures Act, a law that sets forth how federal agencies can establish regulations.

"The Executive does have enforcement discretion to forbear from removing aliens on an individual basis," Paxton argued in court papers, but that does not include "the power to deem unlawful conduct as lawful, or to change an alien's statutory immigration classification."

Nov. 2014: Clinton backs Obama's immigration plan

Paxton said the programs represent one of the "largest changes in immigration policy in our Nation's history" and that the state has the standing to bring the case in part because it will bear the burden and cost of issuing additional driver's licenses.

In a statement out Tuesday, Paxton said that by taking up the case, the Supeme Court "recognizes the importance of the separation of powers."

"As federal courts have already ruled three times, there are limits to the President's authority, and those limits enacted by Congress were exceeded when the President unilaterally sought to grant 'lawful presence' to more than 4 million unauthorized aliens who are in this country unlawfully," he said in a statement. "The Court should affirm what President Obama said himself on more than 20 occasions: that he cannot unilaterally rewrite congressional laws and circumvent the people's representatives."

The Obama administration says that the actions are a valid exercise of prosecutorial discretion and that Texas and the states lack the legal harm, called "standing," to challenge them in Court.

Supreme Court Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli argued in court filings that if the lower court ruling is left undisturbed it will allow the states "to frustrate the federal government's enforcement of the nation's immigration laws."

RELATED: Ted Cruz's immigration reversal

More:
Obama immigration reform: SCOTUS to hear actions ...

Subscribe today for full access on your desktop, tablet, and mobile device.

15349

Let friends in your social network know what you are reading about

No other candidate can match the depth or breadth of Hillary Clintons knowledge and experience.

Try Another

Audio CAPTCHA

Image CAPTCHA

Help

CancelSend

A link has been sent to your friend's email address.

A link has been posted to your Facebook feed.

The Register's Editorial 7:43 a.m. CST January 25, 2016

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

The Des Moines Register editorial board endorses Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination.(Photo: Mark Marturello/Register Illustration)Buy Photo

If theres one thing Democrats and Republicans agree on this year, its the fact that the next president will face enormous challenges.

Domestically, this president must work with Congress in confronting the issues of immigration, health care, increased threats to national security, the disappearing middle class, the growing deficit, Social Security solvency, gun control, renewable energy, sentencing reform and more.

On the world stage, this president will have to work with foreign leaders in dealing with ISIS and other terrorists, climate change, the containment of nuclear threats posed in North Korea and Iran, the Russian incursions in Ukraine and foreign trade.

The presidency is not an entry-level position. Whoever is sworn into office next January must demonstrate not only a deep understanding of the issues facing America, but also possess the diplomatic skills that enable presidents to forge alliances to get things done.

By that measure, Democrats have one outstanding candidate deserving of their support: Hillary Clinton. No other candidate can match the depth or breadth of her knowledge and experience.

As first lady, she worked tirelessly on health care reform and, with bipartisan support, created the Childrens Health Insurance Program that provides coverage for 8 million children.

As a senator, she reached across party lines and joined forces with conservatives, including Sen. Lindsey Graham and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, to fight for job creation and universal health care.

ENDORSEMENT:Marco Rubio can chart new direction for GOP

NASH:Register faced tough decision in endorsements

RELATED:A history of Register caucus endorsements

VIDEO:How the Iowa Caucuses work

As secretary of state, she helped secure international sanctions against Iran and redefined her job by expanding Americas diplomatic agenda to include poverty, womens rights, the environment and other issues.

She is not a perfect candidate, as evidenced the way she has handled the furor over her private email server. In our endorsement of her 2008 campaign for president, we wrote that when she makes a mistake, she should just say so. That appears to be a lesson she has yet to fully embrace.

The Des Moines Register editorial board announces its endorsement of Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for president.

Her changing stance on gay marriage, immigration and other issues has invited accusations that she is guided less by personal conviction than by political calculations. She refutes that, and argues persuasively that a willingness to change ones thinking on specific issues, while remaining true to what she calls the same values and principles, is a virtue, one lacking in most politicians.

Over the course of two meetings, Clinton spent more than three hours with the editorial board, answering questions in a direct and forthright manner. She exhibited an impressive command of the issues, though wed have liked to hear more from her on the debt and the future of Social Security. She was somewhat prickly and defensive when discussing her emails, but overall she was gracious, engaging and personable.

Her chief opponent for the nomination, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, has proven to be an honorable and formidable campaigner, and its very likely that without him in the race, candidates in both parties wouldnt be discussing Americas growing inequality in wealth and income.

Sanders has tapped into the publics anger and frustration with Washington, without demonizing government and resorting to the cheap demagoguery favored by Donald Trump and others. He has shown himself to be a man of courage and principle who has the ability to rally others to his cause.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

But Sanders admits that virtually all of his plans for reform have no chance of being approved by a Congress that bears any resemblance to the current crop of federal lawmakers. This is why, he says, voters cant simply elect him president, but must instead spark a political revolution.

Easier said than done. Congress has the largest Republican majority since the 71st Congress of 1929-31.

A successful Sanders presidency would hinge on his ability to remake Washington in his own image. Its almost inconceivable that such a transformation could take place, even with Democrats controlling both chambers of Congress.

As for Martin OMalley, the data-driven, wonkish former Maryland governor who has gained little traction in the campaign so far, he seems better suited to a Cabinet-level job in a Clinton White House.

In the final analysis, Iowa Democrats will have to choose between the lofty idealism of Bernie Sanders and the down-to-earth pragmatism of Hillary Clinton. For some, this will be a choice of whether to vote with their hearts or their heads.

Clinton has demonstrated that she is a thoughtful, hardworking public servant who has earned the respect of leaders at home and abroad. She stands ready to take on the most demanding job in the world.

David Chivers, president and publisher

Amalie Nash, executive editor and vice president for news and engagement

Lynn Hicks, opinion editor

Clark Kauffman, editorial writer

Andie Dominick, editorial writer

Brian Smith, engagement editor

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton talks about the issues she thinks make her the best choice for president. Rodney White/The Register

1 of 11

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton during a Des Moines Register editorial board interview denies that an FBI investigation found illegal connections between her familys foundation and her service as secretary of state. Rodney White/The Register

2 of 11

Hillary Clinton talks about President Barack Obama's executive actions on gun control. Rodney White/The Register

3 of 11

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has the support of Sybrina Fulton, mother of the late Trayvon Martin, the teenager shot to death in 2012 Rodney White/The Register

4 of 11

DREAMer Kenia Calderon, originally from El Salvador, asked Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton a question about immigration and deportations during Clinton's interview with The Des Moines Register editorial board.

5 of 11

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton explains her opposition to the Keystone Pipleine during her interview with The Des Moines Register editorial board.

6 of 11

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton talks about the popularity of political outsiders like Republican Donald Trump and what she has to do to win as an "establishment candidate."

7 of 11

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton talks about her view on Planned Parenthood during her interview with the Des Moines Register Editorial Board.

8 of 11

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton talks about transparency at the White House while addressing the issue of her private email server as secretary of state.

9 of 11

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton talks about her plan to keep the cost of college education down. The former secretary of state also explains how her plan differs from Bernie Sanders and why college shouldn't be free for everyone. Michael Zamora/The Register

10 of 11

Full video: Hillary Clinton with the Register editorial board Rodney White/The Register

11 of 11

Hillary Clinton on why she's the best choice

Clinton denies FBI investigation

Hillary Clinton on Obama gun control plan

Clinton on endorsement by Trayvon Martin's mother

DREAMer asks Clinton about immigration, deportation

Clinton explains her opposition to the Keystone Pipeline

Clinton on Trump and the rise of political outsiders

Clinton: I defend and I will continue to defend Planned Parenthood

Clinton on White House transparency, private email server

Clinton on the rising cost of college

Full video: Hillary Clinton with the Register editorial board

Read or Share this story: http://dmreg.co/1Vh3oBb

01:25

01:18

04:17

24:08

13:39

01:37

03:16

01:03

00:40

02:08

0) { %>

0) { %>

More here:
Endorsement: Hillary Clinton has ... - desmoinesregister.com

Last week, music legend Stevie Wonder responded to the acquittal of George Zimmerman by vowing to boycott the state of Florida until its Stand Your Ground law is repealed.

Im just one person, Im a human being, Wonder told an audience in Qubec City. But for the gift that God has given me, and for whatever I mean, I decided today that until the Stand Your Ground law is abolished in Florida, I will never perform there again.

Ted Nugent aself-professed expert on the black problem has his own theory behind why Wonder would take such a stand.

When you live in a fog of denial, usually inspired by substance abuse you know with all the lies about dope being a victimless crime, I think youre listening to the victims of this dopey crime, because their brains are fried, Nugent said. Theyre either fried on substance abuse, and all of them know who Im talking about.

Nugent added that Wonder who, as nearly all adult humans know, has impaired vision is addled by being surrounded by people who help him.

But theres also a fog of denial with yes men surrounding you and you have people picking up after you and you have people serving you.

Nugent, like many conservatives, is obsessed with the gun violence in Chicago and blasted liberals for ignoring the slaughter there. These arguments point out that the Windy City has some of the strictest gun laws in America and ignore that most of the guns come from all over the nation to the city, often from Mississippi,where gun laws are much more lax.

Nugent actually argues that the lack of a Stand Your Ground law in Chicago is why so many people are killed.

Democrats have fought for expanded background checks to reduce gun violence with the support of some Republicans and independents, including Nugents brother.

The Motor City Madman is proud of the fact that hes never taken drugs to cloud his mind. So one has to wonder what he blames his sexual indiscretions, including one involving an underage Courtney Love, on?

(h/t Raw Story)

Photo:Ron Gallegos via Flickr.com

Visit link:
LISTEN: Ted Nugent On Stevie Wonders Drug Use