Civil Discourse is harmful because it allows individuals to express their displeasure without any limitations and it creates unwanted tension between groups of interests and tend to cause upmost violence. Even though it is practiced in many schools around the US but under controlled setting but when it is performed out in the world it creates unrest. Also, it infringes upon the right on free speech debate where many individuals consider it to be a violation while others think it is appropriate. Provoking an action or a response from your words which would hurt someone is against the constitution and is to be punished severely. But what would you expect from country's citizens when their own president used civil discourse frequently to turn tides in the political arena. And despite all the media backlash His authoritarian status overshadows all his mistakes. Hate speech should not be used in a public manner and should be confined within person's own private boundaries. The moment it becomes public that where the violence take over and turn the events into incidents. There should be legal limitation set to qualify a speech as civil discourse or under freedom of speech by taking the consequences of that speech into account. For example, in CSU Professor case as long he kept his opinions among his friends it is fine but making it public is what was his mistake as he risked both his and the other groups lives.
Especially in a state where there is inequality civil disobedience will further contaminate the problem. Recently Trump's travel ban into 7 middle eastern countries was a big issue because many believed that it was a hoax and unnecessary use of his power. Trump claimed that the ban will was to reduce or contain terrorism but many sources like an article from Forbes revealed that other countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey or Egypt who support many extremist groups were excluded from the ban because of his business ties with those nations. This civil discourse on a grand scale did not only offend public but when he named it Muslim ban it targeted a specific religion which is a violation of the law and that's why many judges across country disapproved it. As listed in the blog awareness about the issue and ending inequality would help proportionally reduce violence along with civil discourse as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment