Firstly, to summarize the article, it is about an individual threatening the life of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau over a social media post. Some background information on the matter is the individual in question, Chris Hayes, does not know Justin Trudeau on a personal level, and he submitted the threat via a Facebook post (Martin, 2016).
Subsequently, freedom of speech is a delicate issue because humanity feels the need to voice their opinion without being ridiculed for it. Thus, one can say that although someone may be offended, no one can receive a physically injury from someone’s opinion. According to the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people…” (United Nations, n.d.). Plainly stated, people do not appreciate when their freedom of speech is denied, and they make take to violent action to have their human rights validated. In essence, the government is violating this individual’s human right to…show more content… Therefore threatening anyone’s life is immoral and unethical. The basic premise for the threat is that Hayes disapproves of how Trudeau is running the country. Regardless of the validity of the disagreement, it can be related to our daily lives. For example, Hayes’ situation is similar to that of someone threatening their boss’ life on social media, because he did not like the safety policy the boss is implementing at work. In summation, two wrongs do not make a right, however it is a common belief of the many governments to sacrifice human rights at the cost of national security, and the United States (US) is also guilty of
