Single parent dating site. Services for single parents, who do not lose hope for meeting their love. Create your profile and meet with new people. Life has a lot of surprises for you, do not miss a chance. Download our free apps to stay in touch. Your new love life starts here. I am Online dating is a good for you to begin new stage in your life. The time to forget your terrible marriage and exhausting divorce has come, the only thing to do is to create a profile and start communication. Talking to people who are in the same or somehow similar situation can be the best remedy. You can find true friends, who can always be there for you, who can make you laugh and forget about all the daily routine.
Here at Match, we’re delighted to announce a to our new and existing single parent members! Vicki Pavitt, Match’s dating expert, says: ‘’We understand there are so many things for single parents to juggle, especially when it comes to dating.
It’s not just popping out to grab a quick bite, but booking the babysitter, organising the taxi so you’re not late back and also arranging the follow ups – it’s a military operation. So with this new offering from Match at least there is one less thing to worry about.
Not only that, but for those 36 per cent of singles who say they lack confidence, Match offer events and coaching sessions to help get singles back on their dating game and make it fun again.’’ The partnership has been set up following research carried out by Match highlighting the difficulties faced by single parents when it comes to dating.
Check out the results of our survey and then to take advantage of this unique offer ! We’ve done our research, surveying 700+ British single parents, and discovered that: • 35% of single parents haven’t been on a date in over a year, with 45% of single parents saying they NEVER date • A quarter of single parents are concerned that having kids will put off potential dates • Almost half (45%) of those surveyed would like to find a long-term partner • 65% say that they sacrifice their love lives to protect their children, while 30% can’t date as they don’t have anyone to look after their kids Why do single parents feel unable to date?
• Over a third (36%) battle with confidence issues • 28% aren’t sure where to meet the right person • A quarter (25%) say they don’t have enough time • 24% find dating stressful • A quarter admit that they feel guilty when they’re away from their kids in the evening • Over a fifth (23%) admit that they don’t want to tell their parents that they’re going on a date and therefore can’t turn to them for childcare What are single parents looking for?
• 41% would be happier dating another single parent as they understand the responsibilities involved • 71% of those surveyed said honesty was their most desired quality in a partner, with 48% looking for a good sense of humour and 27% seeking sexual chemistry How important is sex?
• For half of single parents, sex is an important part of a relationship • 29% say they have a high sex drive • Over a fifth (22%) rarely have sex for fear of being interrupted by their child • 39% are less confident about having sex since becoming a single parent So what’s the offer?
To help ease single parents back into the dating game, Match and Yoopies are exclusively offering three hours of free babysitting to new and existing single parent members.
This is the perfect opportunity to enjoy guilt-free dating. Our research found that the average date for a single parent lasts nearly three hours (167 minutes). So you can relax, enjoy your date and allow us to cover childcare! Visit the for more information on how it works and how to take advantage of it.
best single parent dating uk free speech arrests - Hate speech v free speech
Orator at in London, 1974 Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, , or legal sanction.
The term " freedom of expression" is sometimes used synonymously but includes any act of seeking, receiving, and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. Freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the (UDHR) and recognized in in the (ICCPR).
Article 19 of the UDHR states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice".
The version of Article 19 in the ICCPR later amends this by stating that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".
Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to , , , , , , , , , , , , the , the , , and . Justifications for such include the , proposed by in , which suggests that: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." The idea of the "offense principle" is also used in the justification of speech limitations, describing the restriction on forms of expression deemed offensive to society, considering factors such as extent, duration, motives of the speaker, and ease with which it could be avoided.
With the evolution of the , application of the freedom of speech becomes more controversial as new means of communication and restrictions arise, for example the , an initiative by Chinese government's that filters potentially unfavorable data from foreign countries. Freedom of speech and expression has a long history that predates modern . It is thought that ancient of free speech may have emerged in the late 6th or early 5th century BC.
The values of the included freedom of speech and . Concepts of freedom of speech can be found in early human rights documents. The , adopted during the in 1789, specifically affirmed freedom of speech as an inalienable right. The Declaration provides for freedom of expression in Article 11, which states that: The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man.
Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law. Article 19 of the , adopted in 1948, states that: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Today, freedom of speech, or the freedom of expression, is recognized in international and regional . The right is enshrined in Article 19 of the , Article 10 of the , Article 13 of the and Article 9 of the . Based on 's arguments, freedom of speech is understood as a multi-faceted right that includes not only the right to express, or disseminate, information and ideas, but three further distinct aspects: • the right to seek information and ideas; • the right to receive information and ideas; • the right to impart information and ideas International, regional and national standards also recognize that freedom of speech, as the freedom of expression, includes any medium, be it orally, in written, in print, through the or through art forms.
This means that the protection of freedom of speech as a right includes not only the content, but also the means of expression. Relationship to other rights The right to freedom of speech and expression is closely related to other rights, and may be limited when conflicting with other rights (see ). The right to freedom of expression is also related to the and court proceeding which may limit access to the search for information, or determine the opportunity and means in which freedom of expression is manifested within court proceedings.
As a general principle freedom of expression may not limit the , as well as the honor and reputation of others. However greater latitude is given when criticism of public figures is involved. The right to freedom of expression is particularly important for , which plays a special role as the bearer of the general right to freedom of expression for all.
However, does not necessarily enable freedom of speech. Judith Lichtenberg has outlined conditions in which freedom of the press may constrain freedom of speech, for example where the media suppresses information or stifles the diversity of voices inherent in freedom of speech. Lichtenberg argues that is simply a form of summed up by the principle "no money, no voice".
Permanent Free Speech Wall in , U.S. Freedom of speech is understood to be fundamental in a democracy. The norms on limiting freedom of expression mean that public debate may not be completely suppressed even in times of emergency.
One of the most notable proponents of the link between freedom of speech and is . He has argued that the concept of democracy is that of self-government by the people. For such a system to work, an informed electorate is necessary. In order to be appropriately knowledgeable, there must be no constraints on the free flow of information and ideas. According to Meiklejohn, democracy will not be true to its essential ideal if those in power are able to manipulate the electorate by withholding information and stifling criticism.
Meiklejohn acknowledges that the desire to manipulate opinion can stem from the motive of seeking to benefit society. However, he argues, choosing manipulation negates, in its means, the democratic ideal. has called this defense of free speech on the grounds of democracy "probably the most attractive and certainly the most fashionable free speech theory in modern Western democracies".
Thomas I. Emerson expanded on this defense when he argued that freedom of speech helps to provide a balance between stability and . Freedom of speech acts as a "safety valve" to let off steam when people might otherwise be bent on . He argues that "The principle of open discussion is a method of achieving a more adaptable and at the same time more stable community, of maintaining the precarious balance between healthy cleavage and necessary consensus." Emerson furthermore maintains that "Opposition serves a vital social function in offsetting or ameliorating (the) normal process of bureaucratic decay." Research undertaken by the project at the , indicates that freedom of speech, and the process of accountability that follows it, have a significant impact in the quality of of a country.
"Voice and Accountability" within a country, defined as "the extent to which a country's are able to participate in selecting their , as well as freedom of expression, , and " is one of the six dimensions of governance that the Worldwide Governance Indicators measure for more than 200 countries. Against this backdrop it is important that development agencies create grounds for effective support for a free press in developing countries.
Richard Moon has developed the argument that the value of freedom of speech and freedom of expression lies with social interactions. Moon writes that "by communicating an individual forms relationships and associations with others – family, friends, co-workers, church congregation, and countrymen.
By entering into discussion with others an individual participates in the development of knowledge and in the direction of the community." Members of (pictured in 2006) have been specifically banned from entering for .
Legal systems sometimes recognize certain limits on or to the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other rights and freedoms, such as in the cases of , , , , , and . In Europe, blasphemy is a limitation to free speech. Justifications for limitations to freedom of speech often reference the "" or the "offense principle". may occur through legal sanction or social disapprobation, or both. Certain public institutions may also enact policies restricting the freedom of speech, for example at .
In (1859), argued that "...there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered." Mill argues that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment.
However, Mill also introduced what is known as the harm principle, in placing the following limitation on free expression: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." In 1985, introduced what is known as the "offense principle", arguing that Mill's harm principle does not provide sufficient protection against the wrongful behaviors of others.
Feinberg wrote "It is always a good reason in support of a proposed criminal prohibition that it would probably be an effective way of preventing serious offense (as opposed to injury or harm) to persons other than the actor, and that it is probably a necessary means to that end." Hence Feinberg argues that the harm principle sets the bar too high and that some forms of expression can be legitimately prohibited by law because they are very offensive.
But, as offending someone is less serious than harming someone, the penalties imposed should be higher for causing harm. In contrast, Mill does not support legal penalties unless they are based on the harm principle. Because the degree to which people may take offense varies, or may be the result of unjustified prejudice, Feinberg suggests that a number of factors need to be taken into account when applying the offense principle, including: the extent, duration and social value of the speech, the ease with which it can be avoided, the motives of the speaker, the number of people offended, the intensity of the offense, and the general interest of the community at large.
Along similar lines as Mill, Jasper Doomen argued that harm should be defined from the point of view of the individual citizen, not limiting harm to physical harm since nonphysical harm may also be involved; Feinberg's distinction between harm and offense is criticized as largely trivial.
In 1999, wrote of the collapse of the harm principle: "Today the debate is characterized by a cacophony of competing harm arguments without any way to resolve them. There is no longer an argument within the structure of the debate to resolve the competing claims of harm.
The original harm principle was never equipped to determine the relative importance of harms." Interpretations of both the harm and offense limitations to freedom of speech are culturally and politically relative. For instance, in Russia, the harm and offense principles have been used to justify the restricting speech (and action) in relation to issues. A number of European countries that take pride in freedom of speech nevertheless outlaw speech that might be interpreted as .
These include Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, and Switzerland. In the U.S., the standing landmark opinion on political speech is (1969), expressly overruling Whitney v. California. In Brandenburg, the referred to the right even to speak openly of violent action and revolution in broad terms: [Our] decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not allow a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing and is likely to incite or cause such action.
The opinion in Brandenburg discarded the previous test of "clear and present danger" and made the right to freedom of (political) speech's protections in the United States almost absolute. Hate speech is also protected by the First Amendment in the United States, as decided in , (1992) in which the Supreme Court ruled that hate speech is permissible, except in the case of imminent violence.
See the for more detailed information on this decision and its historical background. The Internet and information society The was created during the as "a symbol to show support for personal freedoms." Jo Glanville, editor of the , states that "the Internet has been a revolution for as much as for free speech". International, national and regional standards recognise that freedom of speech, as one form of freedom of expression, applies to any medium, including the .
The (CDA) of 1996 was the first major attempt by the to regulate material on the Internet. In 1997, in the landmark case of , the partially overturned the law. Judge , one of the three federal judges who in June 1996 declared parts of the CDA unconstitutional, in his opinion stated the following: The Internet is a far more speech-enhancing medium than , the , or the . Because it would necessarily affect the Internet itself, the CDA would necessarily reduce the speech available for adults on the medium.
This is a constitutionally intolerable result. Some of the dialogue on the Internet surely tests the limits of conventional discourse. Speech on the Internet can be unfiltered, unpolished, and unconventional, even emotionally charged, sexually explicit, and vulgar – in a word, "indecent" in many communities.
But we should expect such speech to occur in a medium in which citizens from all walks of life have a voice. We should also protect the autonomy that such a medium confers to ordinary people as well as media magnates.[...] My analysis does not deprive the Government of all means of protecting children from the dangers of Internet communication.
The Government can continue to protect children from pornography on the Internet through vigorous enforcement of existing laws criminalizing obscenity and child pornography.
[...] As we learned at the hearing, there is also a compelling need for public educations about the benefits and dangers of this new medium, and the Government can fill that role as well. In my view, our action today should only mean that Government's permissible supervision of Internet contents stops at the traditional line of unprotected speech.
[...] The absence of governmental regulation of Internet content has unquestionably produced a kind of chaos, but as one of the plaintiff's experts put it with such resonance at the hearing: "What achieved success was the very chaos that the Internet is.
The strength of the Internet is chaos." Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so that strength of our liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered speech the protects. The (WSIS) Declaration of Principles adopted in 2003 makes specific reference to the importance of the right to freedom of expression for the "" in stating: We reaffirm, as an essential foundation of the Information society, and as outlined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; that this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Communication is a fundamental social process, a basic human need and the foundation of all social organisation. It is central to the . Everyone, everywhere should have the opportunity to participate and no one should be excluded from the benefits of the Information Society offers. According to Bernt Hugenholtz and Lucie Guibault the is under pressure from the " of information" as information with previously little or no economic value has acquired independent economic value in the information age.
This includes factual data, , and pure . The commodification of information is taking place through law, , as well as broadcasting and telecommunications law.
The internet and freedom of speech have been in the spotlight quite often recently. With the removal of Alex Jones from Facebook and YouTube, questions are being raised about freedom of speech rights and how those liberties apply to the internet. Freedom of information Main article: Freedom of information is an extension of freedom of speech where the medium of expression is the . Freedom of information may also refer to the in the context of the Internet and .
As with the right to freedom of expression, the right to privacy is a recognised and freedom of information acts as an extension to this right. Freedom of information may also concern in an information technology context, i.e. the ability to access , without censorship or restrictions. Freedom of information is also explicitly protected by acts such as the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act of Ontario, in Canada.
Internet censorship Main articles: and The concept of has emerged in response to state sponsored censorship, monitoring and surveillance of the internet. Internet censorship includes the control or suppression of the publishing or accessing of information on the Internet. The claims to remove blocks to the "free flow of information" for what they term "closed societies".
According to the (RWB) "internet enemy list" the following states engage in pervasive internet censorship: , , , /, , , , , , and . A widely publicized example of internet censorship is the "" (in reference both to its role as a and to the ancient ). The system blocks content by preventing from being routed through and consists of standard firewall and at the .
The system also selectively engages in when particular sites are requested. The government does not appear to be systematically examining Internet content, as this appears to be technically impractical. is conducted under a wide variety of laws and administrative regulations, including more than sixty regulations directed at the Internet.
Censorship systems are vigorously implemented by provincial branches of state-owned , business companies, and organizations. Title page of , or List of Prohibited Books, (Venice, 1564) Before the invention of the a written work, once created, could only be physically multiplied by highly laborious and error-prone manual copying. No elaborate system of censorship and control over existed, who until the 14th century were restricted to religious institutions, and their works rarely caused wider controversy.
In response to the , and the it allowed to spread, the moved to impose censorship. Printing allowed for multiple exact copies of a work, leading to a more rapid and widespread circulation of ideas and information (see ).
The origins of in most European countries lie in efforts by the Roman Catholic Church and governments to regulate and control the output of printers. In Panegyricae orationes septem (1596), Henric van Cuyck, a Dutch Bishop, defended the need for and argued that 's printing press had resulted in a world infected by "pernicious lies"—so van Cuyck singled out the and the , and the writings of , and .
In 1501 issued a Bill against the unlicensed printing of books and in 1559 the , or List of Prohibited Books, was issued for the first time. The Index Expurgatorius is the most famous and long lasting example of "bad books" catalogues issued by the Roman Catholic Church, which presumed to be in authority over private thoughts and opinions, and suppressed views that went against its doctrines.
The Index Expurgatorius was administered by the , but enforced by local government authorities, and went through 300 editions. Amongst others, it banned or books written by , , , , , , and . While governments and church encouraged printing in many ways because it allowed for the dissemination of and government information, works of dissent and criticism could also circulate rapidly.
As a consequence, governments established controls over printers across Europe, requiring them to have official licenses to trade and produce books. First page of 's 1644 edition of , in which he argued forcefully against the The notion that the expression of dissent or subversive views should be tolerated, not censured or punished by law, developed alongside the rise of and the .
, published in 1644, was 's response to the re-introduction of government licensing of printers, hence . Church authorities had previously ensured that Milton's was refused a license for publication. In Areopagitica, published without a license, Milton made an impassioned plea for freedom of expression and toleration of falsehood, stating: Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.
This 1688 edition of 's (1260) was censored according to the of 1707, which listed the specific passages of books already in circulation that required censorship Milton's defense of freedom of expression was grounded in a worldview and he thought that the English people had the mission to work out the truth of the , which would lead to the of all people.
But Milton also articulated the main strands of future discussions about freedom of expression. By defining the scope of freedom of expression and of "harmful" speech Milton argued against the principle of pre-censorship and in favor of tolerance for a wide range of views.
Freedom of the press ceased being regulated in England in 1695 when the Licensing Order of 1643 was allowed to expire after the introduction of the shortly after the Glorious Revolution.
The emergence of publications like the (1709) and the (1711) are given credit for creating a 'bourgeois public sphere' in England that allowed for a free exchange of ideas and information. As the "menace" of printing spread, more governments attempted to centralize control.
The repressed printing and the printer was burned at the stake in 1546. In 1557 the thought to stem the flow of seditious and heretical books by chartering the . The right to print was limited to the members of that guild, and thirty years later the was chartered to curtail the "greate enormities and abuses" of "dyvers contentyous and disorderlye persons professinge the arte or mystere of pryntinge or selling of books." The right to print was restricted to two universities and to the 21 existing printers in the , which had 53 .
As the British crown took control of type founding in 1637 printers fled to the . Confrontation with authority made printers radical and rebellious, with 800 authors, printers and book dealers being incarcerated in the in Paris before it was stormed in 1789. A succession of English thinkers was at the forefront of early discussion on a right to freedom of expression, among them (1608–74) and (1632–1704).
Locke established the as the unit of value and the bearer of rights to , , and the . However Locke's ideas evolved primarily around the concept of the right to seek salvation for one's soul, and was thus primarily concerned with theological matters. Locke neither supported a universal toleration of peoples nor freedom of speech; according to his ideas, some groups, such as atheists, should not be allowed.
at the headquarters of the . A defence of free speech in an open society, the wall behind the statue is inscribed with the words "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear”, words from 's proposed preface to (1945). By the second half of the 17th century philosophers on the European continent like and developed ideas encompassing a more universal aspect freedom of speech and toleration than the early English philosophers. By the 18th century the idea of freedom of speech was being discussed by thinkers all over the Western world, especially by French like , and .
The idea began to be incorporated in political theory both in theory as well as practice; the first state edict in history proclaiming complete freedom of speech was the one issued December 4, 1770 in during the regency of .
However Struensee himself imposed some minor limitations to this edict in October 7, 1771, and it was even further limited after the fall of Struensee with legislation introduced in 1773, although censorship was not reintroduced.
(1806–1873) argued that without human freedom there can be no progress in science, law or politics, which according to Mill required free discussion of opinion. Mill's , published in 1859 became a classic defence of the right to freedom of expression. Mill argued that drives out falsity, therefore the free expression of ideas, true or false, should not be feared. Truth is not stable or fixed, but evolves with time. Mill argued that much of what we once considered true has turned out false.
Therefore, views should not be prohibited for their apparent falsity. Mill also argued that free discussion is necessary to prevent the "deep slumber of a decided opinion". Discussion would drive the onwards march of truth and by considering false views the basis of true views could be re-affirmed. Furthermore, Mill argued that an opinion only carries intrinsic value to the owner of that opinion, thus silencing the expression of that opinion is an injustice to a basic human right.
For Mill, the only instance in which speech can be justifiably suppressed is in order to prevent harm from a clear and direct threat. Neither economic or moral implications, nor the speakers own well-being would justify suppression of speech. In 's biography of , she coined the following sentence to illustrate Voltaire's beliefs: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Hall's quote is frequently cited to describe the principle of freedom of speech.
In the 20th Century, Noam Chomsky states that: "If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Dictators such as and , were in favor of freedom of speech for views they liked only. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise." argues that "the free speech principle involves a special act of carving out one area of social interaction for extraordinary self-restraint, the purpose of which is to develop and demonstrate a social capacity to control feelings evoked by a host of social encounters." Bollinger argues that is a desirable value, if not essential.
However, critics argue that society should be concerned by those who directly deny or advocate, for example, (see limitations above). The 1928 novel by was banned for in a number of countries, including the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia and Canada. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, it was the subject of landmark court rulings which saw the ban for obscenity overturned. Dominic Sandbrook of in the UK wrote, "Now that public obscenity has become commonplace, it is hard to recapture the atmosphere of a society that saw fit to ban books such as Lady Chatterley’s Lover because it was likely to “deprave and corrupt” its readers." Fred Kaplan of stated the overturning of the obscenity laws "set off an explosion of free speech" in the US.
The right to freedom of expression has been interpreted to include the right to take and publish photographs of strangers in public areas without their permission or knowledge. • • . International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights; adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by UN General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966, entry into force 23 March 1976.
23 March 1976. Archived from on 5 July 2008 . Retrieved 13 March 2014. • ^ van Mill, David (1 January 2016). Zalta, Edward N., ed. (Fall 2016 ed.). • ^ Smith, David (5 February 2006).
. The Guardian. London . Retrieved 2 May 2010. • Raaflaub, Kurt; Ober, Josiah; Wallace, Robert (2007). Origins of democracy in ancient Greece. . p. 65. . • M. P. Charlesworth (March 1943). .
The Classical Review. The Classical Association. 57 (1): 49. :. • Arthur W. Diamond Law Library at Columbia Law School (26 March 2008). . Hrcr.org. www.hrcr.org . Retrieved 25 June 2013. • (10 September 1948). . UN.org. www.un.org .
Retrieved 25 June 2013. • ^ Andrew Puddephatt, Freedom of Expression, The essentials of Human Rights, Hodder Arnold, 2005, p.
128 • ^ Brett, Sebastian (1999). . Human Rights Watch. p. xxv. . • Sanders, Karen (2003). . Sage. p. 68. . • Marlin, Randal (2002). . Broadview Press. pp. 226–27. . • Marlin, Randal (2002). . Broadview Press. p. 226. . • Marlin, Randal (2002). . Broadview Press. pp. 228–29. . • (PDF). World Bank. Archived from (PDF) on 8 April 2008. • Matschke, Alexander (25 December 2014). . D+C Development and Cooperation. • Marlin, Randal (2002).
. Broadview Press. p. 229. . • , CBC News, 8 August 2008. • Brennan, David (26 October 2018). . Newsweek . Retrieved 27 October 2018. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that calling the Prophet Muhammad a pedophile was not protected by freedom of speech laws.
• Chase Winter (26 October 2018). . Deutsche Welle . Retrieved 27 October 2018. An Austrian woman's conviction for calling the Prophet Muhammad a pedophile did not violate her freedom of speech, the European Court of Human Rights ruled Thursday.
• Lucia I. Suarez Sang (26 October 2018). . Fox News . Retrieved 27 October 2018. The freedom of speech does not extend to include defaming the prophet of Islam, the European Court of Human rights ruled Thursday. • Bojan Pancevski (26 October 2018).
. The Wall Street Journal . Retrieved 27 October 2018. Europe’s highest human rights court ruled on Friday that disparagement of religious doctrines such as insulting the Prophet Muhammad isn’t protected by freedom of expression and can be prosecuted. • ^ . Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 17 April 2008 . Retrieved 29 May 2011. • Mill, John Stuart (1859). . (4th ed.). London: Longman, Roberts & Green (published 1869). para. 5. Society can and does execute its own mandates ...
it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.
Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough... • Mill, John Stuart (1859). . (4th ed.). London: Longman, Roberts & Green (published 1869). para. 19. In respect to all persons but those whose pecuniary circumstances make them independent of the good will of other people, opinion, on this subject, is as efficacious as law; men might as well be imprisoned, as excluded from the means of earning their bread.
• Ten Cate, Irene M. (2010). . Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities. 22 (1). Article 2. [A] central argument for freedom of speech in On Liberty is that in order to maximize the benefits a society can gain ... it must permanently commit to restraining dominant groups from their natural inclination to demand conformity. • Wragg, Paul (2015). (PDF). Industrial Law Journal. Oxford University Press. 44 (1): 11. (Subscription required ( help)). Comparison may be made between Mill's ‘tyrannical majority’ and the employer who dismisses an employee for expression that it dislikes on moral grounds.
The protection of employer action in these circumstances evokes Mill's concern about state tolerance of coercive means to ensure conformity with orthodox moral viewpoints and so nullify unorthodox ones.
• ^ Harcourt. "Conclusion". . Retrieved 7 September 2015. • Doomen 2014, pp. 111, 112. • Kenneth Einar Himma. "Philosophy of Law". . Retrieved 13 March 2014. • Lechtholz-Zey, Jacqueline: Laws Banning Holocaust Denial. . Retrieved September 29, 2010. • , (1969) • , p. 32. • Brandenburg, at 447 • Brandenburg, at 450–01 • , p. 124. • . www.americanbar.org . Retrieved 12 October 2016.
• Marcotte, John (2007-05-01). . Badmouth. from the original on 2007-05-04 . Retrieved 2017-10-27. • Glanville, Jo (17 November 2008).
. The Guardian. London . Retrieved 26 March 2014. • (2003). . MIT Press. pp. 349–52. . • ^ Rowland, Diane (2005). Information Technology Law. Routledge-Cavendish. pp. 463–65. . • Klang, Mathias; Murray, Andrew (2005).
. Routledge. p. 1. . • Guibault, Lucy; Hugenholtz, Bernt (2006). . Kluwer Law International. p. 1. . • . The Economist . Retrieved 2018-09-12. • "In what looked like a coordinated effort, Facebook, Apple, and YouTube banned Internet conspiracy theorist Alex Jones from their platforms, each citing its hate-speech policy.(The Week)(Brief article)".
National Review, Inc. 70: 6. September 2018. • Clarke, Ian; Miller, Scott G.; Hong, Theodore W.; Sandberg, Oskar; Wiley, Brandon (2002). (PDF). Internet Computing. IEEE. pp. 40–49.
• Pauli, Darren (14 January 2008). . . Archived from on 12 September 2012. • Martin, Robert; Adam, G. Stuart (1994). A Sourcebook of Canadian Media Law. McGill-Queen's Press. pp. 232–34. . • Deibert, Robert; Palfrey, John G; Rohozinski, Rafal; Zittrain, Jonathan (2008). Access denied: the practice and policy of global Internet filtering. MIT Press. . • . Global Internet Freedom Consortium. from the original on 27 September 2017.
• (PDF). Paris: Reporters Without Borders. March 2011. Archived from (PDF) on 15 March 2011. • Watts, Jonathan (20 February 2006). . London: . • . . Retrieved 30 August 2006. • 20 February 2012 at the . • ^ de Sola Pool, Ithiel (1983).
. Harvard University Press. p. 14. . • ^ MacQueen, Hector L; Waelde, Charlotte; Laurie, Graeme T (2007). . Oxford University Press. p. 34. . • . Ecclesiastical Censorship, "Heresy and Error": The Ecclesiastical Censorship of Books, 1400–1800. Bridwell Library. 17 December 2000. Archived from on 8 September 2012 . Retrieved 26 June 2011.
• Castillo, Anastasia (2010). . GRIN Verlag. p. 12. . • ^ Sanders, Karen (2003). . Sage. p. 66. . • . Early Censorship in England, "Heresy and Error": The Ecclesiastical Censorship of Books, 1400–1800. Bridwell Library. 17 December 2000. Archived from on 5 September 2012 . Retrieved 26 June 2011. • . "Heresy and Error": The Ecclesiastical Censorship of Books, 1400–1800. Bridwell Library. 17 December 2000. Archived from on 8 September 2012 .
Retrieved 26 June 2011. • . The Index of Expurgations, "Heresy and Error": The Ecclesiastical Censorship of Books, 1400–1800. Bridwell Library.
17 December 2000. Archived from on 8 September 2012 . Retrieved 26 June 2011. • Rayner, Gordon (7 October 2011). . The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group Limited . Retrieved 9 May 2018. Mr Rusbridger said: “When people talk about licensing journalists or newspapers the instinct should be to refer them to history. Read about how licensing of the press in Britain was abolished in 1695. • Nelson, Fraser (24 November 2012).
. The Spectator . Retrieved 9 May 2018. Jeremy Paxman famously said he went into journalism after hearing that the relationship between a journalist and a politician was akin to that of a dog and a lamppost.
Several MPs now want to replace this with a principle whereby MPs define the parameters under which the press operates – and “work together”. It is a hideous idea that must be resisted. The last time this happened was under the Licensing Order of 1643, which was allowed to expire in 1695 after the introduction of the 1688 Bill of Rights shortly after the Glorious Revolution. As I wrote in my Daily Telegraph column yesterday, it’s amazing that so many Tory MPs should want to turn the clock back 300 years.
• ^ de Sola Pool, Ithiel (1983). . Harvard University Press. p. 15. . • ^ Jonathan Israel (2002). Radical Enlightenment. Oxford University Press. pp. 265–67. • Jennings, Martin (2017-11-07). . BBC . Retrieved 2017-11-07. • Jonathan Israel (2006). Enlightenment Contested. Oxford University Press. pp. 155ff, 781ff. • Jonathan Israel (2010). A Revolution of the Mind. Princeton University Press. p. 76. • H. Arnold Barton (1986). Scandinavia in the Revolutionary Era – 1760–1815. University of Minnesota Press.
pp. 90–91. • Sanders, Karen (2003). . Sage. p. 67. . • Warburton, Nigel (2009). . Oxford. pp. 24–29. . • ^ Boller, Jr., Paul F.; George, John (1989). They Never Said It: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, and Misleading Attributions. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 124–26. . • Mark Achbar and Peter Wintonick (1992). . • Bollinger, Lee C. (1986).
The Tolerant Society: Freedom of Speech and Extremist Speech in America. Oxford University Press. . • Sandbrook, Dominic (16 October 2010). . The Telegraph . Retrieved 9 May 2018. Though few then could have realised it, a tiny but unmistakeable line runs from the novel Lawrence wrote in the late 1920s to an international pornography industry today worth more than £26 billion a year. Now that public obscenity has become commonplace, it is hard to recapture the atmosphere of a society that saw fit to ban books such as Lady Chatterley’s Lover because it was likely to “deprave and corrupt” its readers.
Although only half a century separates us from Harold Macmillan’s Britain, the world of 1960 can easily seem like ancient history. In a Britain when men still wore heavy grey suits, working women were still relatively rare and the Empire was still, just, a going concern, D H Lawrence’s book was merely one of many banned because of its threat to public morality.
• Kaplan, Fred (July 20, 2009). . The New York Times . Retrieved May 9, 2018. TODAY is the 50th anniversary of the court ruling that overturned America’s obscenity laws, setting off an explosion of free speech — and also, in retrospect, splashing cold water on the idea, much discussed during Sonia Sotomayor’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings, that judges are “umpires” rather than agents of social change.
• Kenworthy, Bill (April 2012). . Newseum Institute. • . aclu.org. American Civil Liberties Union . Retrieved 9 May 2018. Taking photographs and video of things that are plainly visible in public spaces is a constitutional right—and that includes transportation facilities, the outside of federal buildings, and police and other government officials carrying out their duties.
Unfortunately, law enforcement officers have been known to ask people to stop taking photographs of public places. Those who fail to comply have sometimes been harassed, detained, and arrested. Other people have ended up in FBI databases for taking innocuous photographs of public places. • Curtis, Michael Kent (2000). . . . • (2003). . MIT Press. . • (1997). . . . • (2008). . In . The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Thousand Oaks, CA: ; . pp. 182–85. :. . . .
• (2007). . . . . • (2007). . (foreword). University of Minnesota Press. . • Nelson, Samuel P. (2005). . The Johns Hopkins University Press. . • Doomen, Jasper (2014). Freedom and Equality in a Liberal Democratic State.
Bruylant. . • Semeraro, Pietro (2009). . Giuffre Milano. Freedom of speechat Wikipedia's • from Wiktionary • from Wikimedia Commons • from Wikinews • from Wikiquote • from Wikisource • from Wikibooks • from Wikiversity • , David Smith and Luc Torres, The Guardian, 5 February 2006. • , P.A. Madison, The Federalist Blog, 18 October 2008.
• , Somini Sengupta, New York Times, 22 September 2012. • , Global Campaign for Free Expression. • , a research project of the Dahrendorf Programme for the Study of Freedom at St Antony's College in the University of Oxford. • , an international organisation that promotes and defends the right to freedom of expression.
• , Deutsche Welle Akademie. • , Organization of American States. • Several images for : at the (archived March 17, 2018). Additional archives: , , , , , , , .
Sorry, but copying text is forbidden on this website! Family is defined in Webster’s dictionary as “a group consisting of parents and children living in a household together”. But not all families have a mother, father, and children.
Some families only have one parent making it a single parent household. Since the 1960’s single parent households have been increasing year after year. Information provided by the U.S. Census Bureau shows an increase of 3% in single parent homes from 2008 to 2012. Research shows by the University of Washington’s West Coast Poverty Center, that having only one income earner in the home puts single parent households at risk for poverty.
Living in poverty is stressful and can have many emotional effects on children, including low self-esteem, increased anger, frustration, and an increased risk for violent behavior. Besides financial constraints, other emotional effects of growing up in a single parent household may include feelings of abandonment, sadness, loneliness, difficulty socializing, and connecting with others. Effects vary from child to child, however, and the individual parenting style of the single parent is also a big influence on the child’s development.
For the financial side, income loss appears to affect the well-being of children by putting a negative impact on family relations and parenting. The link between economic stress and mental health has been documented in various studies. Single mothers must obtain sufficient money to cover the most basic needs, such as food, shelter, and clothing. Financial strain is one of the strongest predictors of depression in single parents that then affect the children.
Poor single mothers often experience a cycle of hopelessness and despair which is detrimental to both themselves and their children. We will write a custom sample essay on Informative Speech – Single Parent Households specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.90 /page Mother-only families are more likely to be poor because of the lower earning capacity of women, inadequate public assistance, and lack of enforced child support from the fathers.
Most single-parent households are run by mothers, and the absence of a father — coupled with lower household income — can increase the risk of children performing poorly in school. The lack of financial support from a father often results in single mothers working more, which can in turn affect children because they receive less attention and guidance with their homework.
Researcher Virginia Knox concluded from data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, that for every $100 of child support mothers receive, their children’s standardized test scores increase by 1/8 to 7/10 of a point.
In addition, Knox found that children with single mothers who have contact and emotional support from their fathers tend to do better in school than children who have no contact with their fathers. In an article published by the New York Times, Sheila Fitzgerald and Andrea Beller, professors of human resources and family studies at the University of Illinois say “time spent with a single parent during the formative preschool years seems to have particularly bad effects on a boy’s education.” The two Illinois researchers said they studied effects on education because it ”has been shown to be a predictor of welfare and persistent poverty”.
They used two long-term surveys to study two generations of mothers and their offspring, totaling 2,500 boys and girls. ”In general, the longer time spent in a single-parent family, the greater the reduction in education” Single mothers who work outside the home appear to provide greater incentive as role models for their daughters than for their sons, said Andrea Beller in a telephone interview.
The role-model influence in the case of girls appears to compensate for the loss of the mother’s time at home, she said. ”The boy doesn’t have this model,” ”He just has the loss of a parent.” Data provided by the National KIDS COUNT shows that in 2012 35% of homes were single parent households. Breaking down the numbers even further, those of Asian descent were at 17% for having only one parent in the home. Hispanics made up for 42%, American Indians were at 50%, the Black population was at 67%, and Whites made up for 25%.
These percentages today have risen 30% since 1960. So why is this matter not the center of policy discussions? There are three reasons. The first stems from the political debate. Many people do not want to lean one way or another, writing and funding grants, which can go against their political party’s values.
Politics is not always about whom you are for but who you’re against. The second reason is that the minority communities have been hit the hardest.
Even bringing up this issue a person can be claimed as being racist. Last is that there is no quick fix. Welfare reform began in the mid 1990’s and only offered modest marriage incentives. But the first step to fixing a problem is admitting there is one. References Maranto, Robert (2014, April 20) Ignoring an Inequality Culprit: Single-Parent Familie http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303603904579493612156024266 The Future of Children (2005, Fall) Why Do Single-Parent Families Put Children at Risk?
http://futureofchildren.org/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=37&articleid=107§ionid=692 Kunz, Marnie (2014, Jan 6) The Effects of a Single Parent Home on a Child’s Behavior http://www.livestrong.com/article/83670-effects-single-parent-home-childs/ Kirby, Jacqueline (1993) Single-parent Families in Poverty http://www3.uakron.edu/schulze/401/readings/singleparfam.htm AP (1988, June 29) Single-Parent Homes: The Effect on Schooling http://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/29/garden/single-parent-homes-the-effect-on-schooling.html Data Center (2012) Children in single parent families by race http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/Tables/107-children-in-single-parent-families-by-race?loc=1&loct=1#detailed/1/any/false/868,867,133,38,35/10,168,9,12,1,13,185/432,431 This service will be useful for: At Studymoose.com you will find a wide variety of top-notch essay and term paper samples on any possible topics absolutely for free.
Want to add some juice to your work? No problem! Here you will also find the best quotations, synonyms and word definitions to make your research paper well-formatted and your essay highly evaluated.
Arrested For Calling Someone A MAN In The U.K