Running Head: WEEK 3 ASSIGNMENT: THE SCIENCE OF MORALITY    1
WEEK 3 ASSIGNMENT: THE SCIENCE OF MORALITY    2
WEEK 3 ASSIGNMENT: THE SCIENCE OF MORALITY
Table of Contents
Introduction    3
The Legal Perspective    3
The Scientific Perspective and Ted Talk    5
The Political Context of Ideology of Equality    8
Viewpoints of Political Liberalism and Political Participation    8
Conclusion    9
References    10
Introduction
The power of the government to control speech on the internet and elsewhere is strongly restricted by American law and culture (Moore & Bell, 2017). The regulations for hate groups in this context could either indirectly restrict individual speech or directly restrict the right to use any platform. Strong protections against such restrictions are provided by the First Amendment. By freeing them from most intermediary liability for speech that appears on their platforms, Congress has offered additional protections to tech companies.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment is not bound by private companies in general (Finn, 2020). Some activists, however, support the government's new efforts to regulate nonprofit organizations that tend to be on the side of hate speeches. Although some of these nonprofit organizations are large and dominant, their market power can disintegrate and for speakers excluded from a platform, alternatives are available.
The Legal Perspective
The Supreme Court has defined the guarantee of freedom of speech of the First Amendment quite expansively and the constitutional security given to freedom of speech is perhaps the greatest protection afforded under the Constitution to any human right. In the United States, the principle of freedom of expression usually prevails over other democratic ideals, such as equality, human dignity and privacy, as a matter of circumstance.
Other democratic principles must be advanced in the United States by means, which do not limit freedom of expression (Moore & Bell, 2017). That is why the constitutional security given to freedom of expression in the United States is seemingly unprecedented anywhere else in the world and why the American understanding of freedom of expression in other democratic countries is not always consistent with international human rights principles and the protection of freedom of expression.
International human rights principles and other democratic countries' constitutional laws treat freedom of expression as an essential right, but one that must be balanced against other democratic rights. This being so, international human rights principles and other democratic countries' constitutional law accept some freedom of expression limitations that would be forbidden under the First Amendment (Finn, 2020).
The manner, in which constitutional regulation of freedom of expression has evolved in the United States can be contrasted with the way, in which international human rights documents, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, listed above, safeguard individual rights. The mechanism is a statutory one here and the drafters were able to balance and satisfy various individual rights and make value judgments as to adequate limits on specific individual rights (Moore & Bell, 2017).
Thus, in Article 19, the drafters of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights made a valuable decision that freedom of expression is an essential individual right to be secured. But in Article 20, by refusing protection to what they deemed to be especially harmful ideas, such as the promotion of national, ethnic, or religious animosity that constitutes incitement to bigotry, hostility, or abuse, they represented the protection granted to freedom of speech. Only offensive too many people, the reason is inherently unacceptable (Moore & Bell, 2017).
Government acts, such as control of private companies, are also underpinned by the definition of the public interest. In other words, politicians and others see government, by legislation, vindicating public interest (Hodge & Greve, 2017). Two parts comprise a public interest claim. First, it should determine that there is a need for government intervention to protect some commonly held value;...