|
Hey guys i am doing an oral on freedom of speech with the issues of ACTA and occupy melbourne, is this any good?
Its for english, 4-5 minutes
Its a persuasive essay and my contention is 'freedom of speech should not be constrained by the government or media outlets'
Freedom of speech is a right we should all share, which is that one can express his opinions without fear of being prosecuted. Freedom of speech has been crucial in letting a selected group of people share their opinions and thoughts, and has changed the history of the world. The power of free expression should never be underestimated. When we think of other places such as Egypt or Libya where freedom of expression is heavily restricted, we should feel blessed to live in such a wonderful country. However, Australia’s recent history has shown the right to our freedom of speech and expression has been impeded, both by government and businesses. Two recent events in Australian history, the Occupy Melbourne act and the Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement legislation represent two very different platforms on which people can express their rights. Both have shown the power of government and businesses and how they twist and bend the rules in their favour to restrict our freedom. The role of these organisations should not impede the right to freedom of speech, and this is something we cannot and will not accept.
The Occupy Melbourne movement, still currently persisting, is part of a global movement protesting against the corrupting effects of money in politics and unfair social standards. It unites many people to share their ideas and views on how the world should be run.
By the Australian government’s orders, activists have constantly been given deadlines and have been removed by force if the rally had gone on past its due date, even though they have a right to protest. This is simply unacceptable.
The Melbourne City Council is trying everything to abuse bylaws to harass protesters. Such an example was a notice issued on the 4th of November of last year by the City of Melbourne Local Law council, stating that a group of protesters must move from their position as they did not have consent for advertising material. If political material constitutes advertising material, does that mean it is an offence to have a political protest with any kind of signage without a permit? The government seems to think so, which is intolerable. The United Nations General Assembly act formed in 1948 states that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. This includes freedom to hold opinions without interference. Another outrageous act of suppression was on December of last year, when police approached a female demonstrator who was wearing a small tent. Upon refusal to take it off, the policeman used considerable force to remove it despite her refusal. She was left in her underwear in public view. Professor Spencer Zifcak president of Liberty Victoria, one of Australia’s leading civil liberties organisation, said this was in ‘clear violation of the right to freedom of speech and assembly’ and yet no one was punished for this heinous crime.
As well as restricting our freedoms on the streets of Melbourne, our own government wants to censor the largest platform on which we express ourselves; the internet. The Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, or ACTA, is an initiative that many countries, including Australia, have endorsed. The legislation aims to combat global proliferation of counterfeiting and piracy over the internet. It aims to mainly support corporations who have intellectual material they wish to preserve under copyright. The dilemma arises with the words intellectual property. The term is not clearly defined within the legislation, so it could mean trademarks, any idea or information which later could be copyrighted, restricted and criminalised. If you share copyrighted material, you will be fined and even convicted. This of course means that normal copyrighted material cannot be distributed, but it goes further than that. This also means sharing an mp3 with your friend, uploading a video of a party with copyrighted music in the background, or quoting a copyrighted newspaper article in an email can get you imprisoned.
And now your internet provider, or ISP, has the right to monitor your communication, and everything that goes in and out will be censored. ‘ACTA’ is currently under protest and many petitions have formed against it. The legislation is completely unjustified and will endanger the rights of millions of people. Bloated figures are being used to enforce this horrible legislation. An example being the International Trade Commission reporting ridiculous losses of 250 billion dollars in the US alone, which has no way to be proven and this statement was later questioned by the US government itself. The Recording Industry Association of America estimated lime wire, an illegal file sharing site, cost companies 75 trillion dollars. How could a company owe more money than the entire world combined? Multi-billion dollar corporations such as GoDaddy.com, Universal Music Group and Sony are trying to censor what is on the internet for their own profit.
The censorship of expression over the internet may sound incomprehensible, but through the power of multi-billion dollar corporations such as GoDaddy.com, Universal Music Group and Sony under ACTA, copyrighted information could lead to a block in your account or even criminal charges.
Some may argue that information should be censored to protect others and regulate our society, but how do we award this right to anyone? To whom do we give the right to censor our material and who has the judgement to censor what is deemed inappropriate? It is not just the right of the person who speaks to be heard, it is the right of everyone in the audience to listen and to hear. Freedom of speech is meaningless unless it means the freedom of the person or group who thinks differently and criticises those who would normally not be criticised.
We have a right to freedom of speech and expression in this country. Let’s stand up against abuse from our government and businesses and show them that we as people deserve to be heard and listened to.
Any Help Would Be Appreciated
  
|
The first and last bit are decent.
The middle-part no longer deals with freedom of speech.
You switch to net neutrality and the occupy movement. The occupy movement was not removed in a violation of free speech. In fact, their existence is a clear example of free speech and the right to assemble.
So I would re-write the entire middle part because it stops dealing directly with freedom of speech.
|
Is this for a high school subject? English? History? Some other random subject?
Just to be brief,
you said in your first paragraph that offensive literature may be punishable by death in other countries. If you're going to say that, give an example, don't just chuck out phrases that sound powerful and will help your point and not back them up.
If you mention SOPA/PIPA, tell people what they are, your audience may have no idea (unless you're allowed to assume that) as it sounds kinda weird just throwing out abbreviations without defining them to an uncertain audience.
You say "devious wording of the legislation" and I expected you to quote the legislation to show how ambiguous or "devious" it apparently is, but since you didn't, I don't know whether you made that up or not.
Your example about the mp3 and party stuff is good because (I'm assuming this is high school or something) your classmates will easily be able to relate to that.
How long is your oral meant to go for? I don't see this really being long enough if you wanted to talk about ACTA and freedom of speech.
Also, criticism isn't the sole facet of freedom of speech.
|
You guys are so fricken awesome!
thank you so much i will try my best to improve it for the better!
|
sidebar title misleading
ban imo
|
On February 08 2012 17:58 ShaLLoW[baY] wrote:sidebar title misleading ban imo
Hehee .....I was thinking the same thing. We're all perverts :D
|
On February 08 2012 18:03 dartoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2012 17:58 ShaLLoW[baY] wrote:sidebar title misleading ban imo Hehee .....I was thinking the same thing. We're all perverts :D
Oh TL....how ive missed you <3
|
On February 08 2012 17:58 ShaLLoW[baY] wrote:sidebar title misleading ban imo
Can anyone blame us?
|
|
|
Information is probably the only part you want to watch out for and make sure you properly identify. Most people only know the general definition of information (general knowledge) and this is probably the definition you want.
In computer science, the definition of information changes into any data that is organized into a logical format (known as a file on your computer). This includes sensitive data such as your real name, address, credit card numbers, bank account passwords, etc. This is more than likely information you would prefer not to have shared outside your own control.
|
My advice is don't combine the two topics. You're better off going deeper into one subject instead of briefly discussing both and desperately trying to connect them when they're hardly related to each other.
|
On February 08 2012 17:58 ShaLLoW[baY] wrote:sidebar title misleading ban imo
agree
clicked on this thread only for that
yes ban please :p
|
Your trying to connect the right to assembly and the right to free spech into the right to protest. which doesn't actualy exist. its a werid mess that you don't even credit free spech in the middle. best to cut that out and continue with what acta would do.
|
zalz suc and blackjack hit all of the important points really. Focus on one topic and don't confuse two similar ones. Seems pretty decent otherwise
|
A 4-5 minutes essay shouldn't be scripted imo. Structure it in a few titles and talk :o
Just my opinion.
|
I clicked because I read
"My oral on f..."
|
On February 08 2012 17:07 firehand101 wrote:
Freedom of speech is something that must be treasured. It is a sacred right in which one can express his opinion in any way, shape or form without fear of being prosecuted as long as it has achieved no physical harm.
Not bad, you'll need to take a breath or two with "in which" and "as long as". Maybe break this down.
Australia, particularly along with other first world countries ‘should’ cherish this right compared to other countries where offensive literature may be punishable by death.
"First-world" is somewhat antiquated, derogatory to some audiences, but appropriate when invoking the pride of industrialized countries. Your use of "compared to" is far detached from its antecedent, Australia. Your example of literature is particular, and only adds to the complexity of this sentence. You've mixed Australia, and some other industrialized countries -- and then contrasted them against some others based on some property... it's getting confusing. Keep it straight and simple: "Australia, an industrialized nation, must ... when we think of other places where the right to EXAMPLE1 or EXAMPLE2 is not enjoyed." You also want to put your sentences into a "positive" form, ending sentences with the meat of the statement. So begin with "When we think of..." and end with "Australia must..."
But recently in both Australian media and other, the right to our sacred freedom of speech has been impeded, both by government and via media corporations. Instances such as the occupy wallstreet/occupy Melbourne acts and the controversial SOPA/PIPA bill show the world that freedom of speech is losing its touch.
"and other" what? Things that aren't media? Other nations?
"sacred" invokes the divine. Are you sure you want to do this?
"the ... to our .. ... of ... has": try to get to "has" a lot sooner in this sentence.
"both by" should be "by both". Remove "via", "by" is synonymous and coordinates to both objects.
"Instances" should be followed by "of". Look up the definition of "instance".
"SOPA" and "PIPA" should be de-acronymed. Briefly explain what they are and why they are relevant.
"losing its touch" is an idiom best reserved for concrete animate actors, not abstractions. People lose their touch on reality, reality does not lose its touch on people.
The Occupy Melbourne movement, which is still currently persisting, is part of a global movement protesting against the corrupting effects of money in politics and criticism of wages in the upper class which began in New York. Throughout the demonstrations protesters have been given deadlines and have been removed by force if the rally had gone on past its due date, which is simply unacceptable.
What began in New York? The the Occupy Melbourne movement? The global movement? The corrupting effects? The wages? The criticism? The upper class?
"Criticism" does not agree with "protesting".
"have been given... have been removed." By whom? Use the active voice: "They gave the protesters... they removed the rallies by force."
"... which is simply unacceptable." Just end the sentence and start fresh. "This is simply unacceptable."
We, a country that was appalled at the disgusting freedom rights the Egyptians were given are okay with it being taken away in our own back yards?
This sounds like a colloquialism, but it semantically falls on its face. Read it aloud and try again.
The United Nations General Assembly act states that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression, which includes freedom to hold opinions without interference. Although Australia is signatory to this treaty, no government has implemented the free speech provisions and therefore are not enforceable by Australian courts.
Which act? Please give me the name or the resolution #.
Stop gluing together unrelated sentences with "which". Just place a period and start a new sentence, you'll breath a lot more.
"interference" by whom? From what?
Courts do not enforce. Governments do.
I don't think this final sentence adds anything to your thesis. "There is this great law that we agreed to, but no one else recognizes it, so we don't adhere to it." Doesn't make sense.
Internet censorship may be the last nail in the coffin for our beloved right, as the most influential way to communicate with one another may be censored by the government and multi-million dollar corporations.
Again, I'd prefer if you took a breath, split the sentence at "as", and then elaborate on what the Enemy/Other/Opposition threaten.
Also, a million dollar company is modest, but hardly influential. A billion dollar company has millions to spend on influence. Get your facts straight, don't point fingers at shadows, name names.
The ACTA agreement is an initiative in which many countries, including Australia, combat global proliferation of counterfeiting and piracy. The dilemma arises when the devious wording of the legislation is brought to light in the words intellectual property. It is not defined within the legislation, so it could mean trademarks, any idea or information which later could be copyrighted, restricted and criminalised. If you share copyrighted material, you will be fined and even convicted.
Is ACTA the focus of your argument? Why didn't you mention it earlier?
What does ACTA stand for?
What is its stated intention?
Isn't there a counterargument? Why ACTA exists in the first place? You should address this, rather than speaking directly to an assumption of agreement from your audience. Just because you say it, doesn't mean it's true. If you cannot dissect your opponent's argument fairly then your own objectivity is suspect.
And now your internet provider, or ISP, has the right to monitor your communication, and everything that goes in and out will be censored. Under ACTA, copyrighted information could lead to a block in your account or even criminal charges. This means sharing an mp3 with your friend, uploading a video of a party with copyrighted music in the background, or quote a copyrighted newspaper article in an email.
All good to know, please put this early and throughout your argument, not at the end.
Some may argue that information should be censored to protect others and regulate our society, but how do we award this right to anyone?
"Some may argue": Wikipedia calls this "weasel wording". You're demonizing a straw man, because you cannot name names.
"information should be censored": would your opponents agree with this coloring of ACTA's intention (wouldn't your opponents focus on the language of "honest commerce", "intellectual property", and "anti-piracy" -- things that the majority of people will side with). If you haven't heretofore convinced me that ACTA is explicitly written for censorship (of you and your friends, which seems reactionary), then I will assume that you're just mud-slinging.
To whom do we give the right to censor our material and who has the judgement to censor what is deemed inappropriate?
The government.
It is not just the right of the person who speaks to be heard, it is the right of everyone in the audience to listen and to hear.
I don't think you've put together a strong enough connection between "speech" and sharing mp3s. Most people are deferential to copyright & patent laws, so without concrete examples of legitimate information exchange that are threatened. (Individuals are not likely to be directly threatened; they are more likely to be affected by major Internet services that are directly targeted by the bill's proponents.)
Freedom of speech is meaningless unless it means the freedom of the person or group who thinks differently and criticises those who would normally not be criticised
"... is ... unless ... and ... those who would normally not be ...": You don't want to end your argument on this awkward footing. Short, simple sentences. Noun verb [object], done.
Try reading this aloud to someone. It's impossible without moving at a snail's pace and embellishing "meaningless" "freedom" "thinks differently" "criticises", and there's nothing left to emphasize at the end.
See Strunk & White, The Elements of Style, "Principles of Composition", #22:
22. Place the emphatic words of a sentence at the end.The proper place in the sentence for the word or group of words that the write desires to make most prominent is usually the end. Humanity has hardly advanced in fortitude since that time, though it has advanced in many other ways. becomes Since that time, humanity has advanced in many ways, but it has hardly advanced in fortitude. This steel is principally used for making razors, because of its hardness. becomes Because of its hardness, this steel is used principally for making razors. ...
|
If for some reason you end without momentum, remember to thank your audience: "Thank you." has a lot of impact.
|
It is done! well, the second draft haha
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
