Free Essay. The Science of Morality

Freedom of expression, freedom of speech, and freedom of association form values that Americans enjoy and observe. Nevertheless, there are situations when people find themselves in ethical dilemmas concerning the rights moves or actions to take. This occurs when people or certain groups aim at presenting concepts that several people perceive as wicked demands to attract recognition and privilege that is widely secured for recognized perspectives. The groups under 501©(3) enjoy certain tax status, especially for the racist and white propaganda organizations. 501©(3) organization is described as a trust, corporation, or unincorporated association of another organization type that is subjected to federal income tax exemption. This is under section 501©(3) of Title 26 of the US Code. This paper explores hate groups and their actions, especially in tax behaviors. The paper argues that all Americans alongside the numerous organizations have unique rights specified under the Constitution. The rights of these groups and individuals are argued that they should be equal for all regardless of the different views that they hold. The discussion also argues that government taxes should not subsidize the hate groups and that these hate groups are not worthy of nonprofit status as their activities involve deceptive means. In this case, the discussion looks at the IRS, and the rights of hate groups.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Equal rights for all Americans and organizations

All Americans (and organizations) should be afforded equal rights, notwithstanding different points of view (remember Evelyn Beatrice Hall: I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.

The United States Constitution was written during the 1787 summer in Philadelphia (Rossum, 201). The Constitution includes the fundamental law of the United States federal administration system and represented the landmark document of the Western world. It serves in defining the principal organs of the US federal government and the jurisdictions of these organs. It includes the basic rights off all US citizens. The rights of American citizens have been included in the Constitution, and amendments have taken place over the years, favoring the citizens. For instance, the Bill of Rights, established in 1791, has limited the federal government’s powers.

The Bill of Rights in the US Constitution serves to protect the freedom of religion where different people can associate themselves with the religion of their choice. They are allowed to worship, and the Constitution recognizes the different days of worship (Rossum, 2018). Americans are also granted freedom of speech where they can express themselves freely. This requires them to use freedom of expression only in the right way and not intimidate or limiting the freedom of others. Freedom of assembly is contained in the Bill of Rights, where all Americans enjoy freely assembling or gathering in public areas. The government is required to protect American citizens even during the assemblies. American citizens are covered by the law, especially in the right to bear and keep arms. There are requirements that all American citizens should fulfill when they decide to own arms. Guns have been a hot debate in the US, with two facets, including opposers and supporters of the rights. The Bill of Rights guarantees American citizens the freedom of petition in case they are brought before a court of law, and a ruling is made such they feel not contented (Rossum, 2018). Besides, the Bill of Rights prohibits any unusual and cruel punishment, unreasonable search and seizure, and forced self-discrimination. The Bill of Rights provides numerous legal protections, such as preventing Congress from enacting law while respecting the founding of the religion. The federal government is also prohibited from depriving a given person life, property, or liberty in the absence of due law process. The Bill of Rights requires indictment by a grand jury in federal criminal cases, for any given capital offense (Rossum, 2018). It serves to guarantee speedy public trial in the presence of an impartial jury. The trial should happen in the specific district where the crime occurred. Further, it prohibits incidences of double jeopardy.

Non-Governmental Organizations have been in existence for several years. There are numerous NGOs from the US that operate both locally, nationwide, and globally. The NGOs' focus includes the rights safeguarded in the documents, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and social justice issues.

The central aspect of the First Amendment maintains that the Federal administration is compelled to remain neutral at times in the marketplace of ideas. In the United States, the Supreme Court has applied the above principle over the years in case after case. The court has maintained that the US Constitution safeguards firebrand Vatican critics and priests similarly. It also holds that the Constitution protects activists of militant civil rights and white supremacists alike. Besides, it protects those who speak for or speak against a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy in the United States. The Constitution shields individuals who would burn American crosses or flags as a form of protest, similar to how it shields individuals displaying the crosses and flags with pride. Where a system that allows the debate of public issues to go on without inhibition, and carried out actively and wide-open means, there ought to be protection from the freedom to offend. According to the American Bar Association, this has been upheld over the years, and it did not take the bizarre presidential campaign in 2016 to demonstrate that a political expression can potentially become insane, harsh, and in a polarized country and downright nasty.

Speech offensiveness is considered a factor, or it should not be a factor altogether, in the event of deciding whether the First Amendment offers protection toward freedom of expression. The neutrality principle is borrowed from a stirring maxim that is, in most cases, attributed to Voltaire “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” this is significantly great stuff. However, it shows the extent of what we think we understand concerning free expression is incomplete. Evelyn Beatrice Hall wrote this statement. The poetic pledge does not offer guidance regarding how to shield what could be identified as indefensible.

Further, this becomes complicated due to the fact that the defense of freedom of peace involves far more than the freedom of political speech. The chance of taking or giving an offense emerges exponentially in the case of gender. Consequently, the speech involves a perennial target of government censors.

Government tax incentives toward hate groups

One may be concerned about why the .public ought to worry about tax treatment, especially for the operated on a private basis. Multiple grounds are explaining the need of the public population to express concerns about tax exemption, particularly for hate groups.

The various reasons include exemption from taxation, which represents the revenues lost for programs run by the Federal administration. The next rationale is that exemption from tax is perceived as a form of public subsidy for hate groups (Reed, 2012). Besides, the situation can potentially be a result of the acts tax-exempt as being the approval of the Federal administration, especially towards the activities of the white supremacists.

When the federal administration is involved in foregoing tax revenue activities, which occurs merely as a result of an entirely tax-exempt regime, this amounts to the substantial compelling ground where people should be concerned about the tax status of the hate groups. Firms that have been categorized as tax-exempt, often are not expected to remit taxes to the United States federal administration. It is challenging to compute the impact associated with the exemption. Tax-exempt organizations do not have an incentive to engage in tax planning, which allows them to report revenues without any adverse repercussions.

Additionally, when taxes from the federal administration is imposed on the identified class of companies, those spending huge sums of their funds, particularly the charitable programs, would ultimately show a very minute taxable income base. The possibility of deducting expenses explains this. The revenue foregone thus poses a challenge to measure. It is argued that the firms placed under the tax-exempt category and their tax failure will eventually lead to reduced US federal administration revenue. This practice typically shifts this burden to the ultimate taxpayer.

The status of 501©(3) has the probability of being perceived as a public subsidy. This is a key reason that attracts a lot of attention and concern, especially from the public (Reed, 2012). There are yet-to-be-found theories explaining the reason why certain organizations need to be exempted from taxation. However, a widely applied theory explains that charitable organizations' activities need to be subsidized. The theory supports this by stating that the activity offers crucial goods, especially to needy persons. In this way, it helps in relieving the federal administration of some burden. Charitable organizations also need to receive the subsidy as they help in promoting the concepts of diversity and pluralism (Reed, 2012).

Nevertheless, this theory is found to have concerns as it lacks universal support without regard to the Supreme Court’s inexplicit endorsement, even though it is perceived as a leading theory that can be used to explain the exemption from taxation (Phillips et al., 2019). Concerns will ultimately emerge concerning the indiscriminate status of Search Results Internal Revenue Service towards particular hate groups. This is because the tax-exempt aspect of a certain organization is taken as a subsidy.

Bestowing the status of tax-exempt towards a certain organization by US federal administration has implicit approval, especially from the US government, regarding the organizations’ operations. The particular organization is usually relieved of the federal tax burden is it receives the status of tax-exempt. Besides, it also gives donors an opportunity to deduct their specific contributions from their tax liabilities. There is an implication of equivalence between the tax-exempt firms’ donation and the tax remittance if a deduction is allowed. This is especially sensible for the majority of tax-exempt firms. For instance, the firms that offer shelter to homeless persons usually offer a service that the majority of the population will consider as the role of the federal administration.

Therefore, may the given payments extended to these charitable organizations should be perceived such that they were payments towards the government. Besides, it serves in the promulgation of propaganda, leading to racism. In the event, the exemption from taxation serves as an implied governmental approval of the organizations’ activities and is classified as tax-exempt. People would easily perceive it as not acceptable to permit such an exemption to be allowed on hate groups. This is because these groups usually espouse a given belief that acts against what defines Americans.

Hate groups and the IRS

The radical right in the US makes use of illicit and legal ways of securing funding recruitment activities, operation efforts, and propaganda. The supremacists have, over the years, a recorded history of tax avoidance. Tax evasion is an illegal act that the hate groups in their activities. They may also employ legal means that facilitate their tax evasion.