This idea ingrained in The Breakfast Club would have broken the Hayes Code by ridiculing law. The Hayes Code was also broken because the ideas in The Breakfast Club could lower the audience’s moral standards . The defiance of authority and disregard for rules by the protagonists would not have been approved under the Hayes Code. The Breakfast Club also violates the Hays Code through the presentation of illegal drug
This may cause uproars or unrest in the community, which may disrupt the fragile harmony between the groups. In addition, artworks may also mock the race or religion, insulting an object or belief that is considered sacred to the race or religion. As a result, it would not only offend the race or religion, but may also cause harm to the community through riots, death threats by the offended race or religion. This is evident in Andres Serrano 's “Piss Christ”, a 1987 photograph of the crucifix submerged in the artist’s urine. This sparked many protests and controversies within the Christian community, considering it to be insulting something as sacred as their God.
Based on the analysis we done, the news has a clear stand on opposing the ideology of LGBT in Malaysia. By using the proclamations from the public figures in Malaysia with firm confirmation that there is no room for LGBT community to obtain equal rights as the normal Malaysian community. Islam was the main gatekeeper for this issue as the lifestyle of LGBT community is against the nature of Islam. Apart from that, the identity of Muslim will be destroyed if LGBT is not demolish because there will be issue of liberalism arise among the LGBT and Muslim. A harmonious country of multi-ethnics and diverse cultural backgrounds will be
Where do I draw the line between these two things? It is not so easy technically, just like one cannot tell what exact moment the line is between day and night. This is pretty much personal call. But if one was to define a generic understanding of where is the line, he would say that any free speech becomes hate speech the moment anyone's expressions and supporting actions during so called free speech threaten and or antagonize the existence of party being made fun of. One can keep n number of opinions judgmental about others, express them as disapproval but the moment one denies their right to exist in its own world, he is hate speech.
The topic of political correctness in communications deserves to be researched further in depth for many reasons. The first reason as to why political correctness is worthy of a study, is because it in itself has begun to isolate individuals.. While the initial intention of political correctness was to reject derogatory terms in order to create more respect for one another, it has ultimately made society more uncomfortable with people who fit the conditions of these politically charged terms. According to Gallagher (2013), “the effect of political correctness has been to make everyone avoid these topics altogether -- thereby hindering our ability to get comfortable in living and working with those who are different from us.” (para. 6).
It is also a social evil. “O you who have believed, do not raise your voices above the voice of the Prophet or be loud to him in speech like the loudness of some of you to others, lest your deeds become worthless while you perceive not.” (surah hujraat 49:2) 11. Greed Becoming greedy leads to jealousy and jealousy is a sin. It is a social evil with destroys all humanity and removes every bit of care that you have for others. Therefore, being greedy is also a social evil.
The banning of unfavorable ideas and opinions online will weaken the nation, the methods with with this country are run will remain unchallenged and change will be slowed. Should the government grant one group more rights to speak than another, how can this country ever maintain a fair discourse on important issues, or grow and adapt? Speech that offends must be defended; America can not fall back on the values we once cherished and mimic the tyranny we freed ourselves from. Government
In Branzburg v. Hayes (1972), Freedom of the press was further defined as ""a fundamental personal right"", not confined to newspapers and periodicals. From these interpretations, the Government is disallowed by the Constitution to monitor internet content, as the internet is recognized as a platform -- or, a â€œvehicleâ€ -- that distributes information on a (mostly) global scale. In recognizing internet content as protected under Freedom of speech and Freedom of the press, we must consider the limitations placed on these liberties. The term â€œShouting fire in a crowded theaterâ€, arose in the Schenck v. United States case (1919) which issued that the defendant 's speech opposing the military draft of WWI was not protected by the Constitution. The metaphor in question was the paraphrased opinion of Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. and is commonly referenced to explain the censorship of speech with malicious or harmful intent.
If the media sector and newspaper company did not follow those rules, the Home Affair Minister has the right to suspend the permit and refuse an application for a permit for newspaper and printing presses. On the other hand, Home Affair Minister can suspend the permit if any publication risk national security or create social conflict. The Minister has obviously restricted freedom of expression and also freedom of speech. The public always wants to know the truth and the first principle of journalism is truth and accuracy. Why do the Minister wanted to restrict from writing news regarding politics?
Singaporeans should not be allowed to speak as they wish on race and religion in public. Many people think that freedom of speech is the right to express anything they want, which includes the freedom to hate, without censorship or restrictions from the government. However, such libertarian theory is thought to be impractical in Singapore because of racial, religious and cultural differences. The government believed that certain provocative speech should be curtailed to safeguard social stability. Hence, freedom of speech is not an absolute right in Singapore.