Challenging Interview The movie The Interview was banned from being shown in theaters because the film contained the assassination of an overseas dictator. The Kim Jun-un saw the movie as an insult to him and that the release would be an act of war. Therefore Kim Jun-un demanded it be shut down, however the movie was still planned to be released during the winter. It wasn’t until there was a cyber-attack on Sony, and terrorist bomb-threats that caused the movie to be pulled from theaters. Many felt that the movie being removed from theaters was a loss for freedom of speech. Seeing as how the movie could not be shown in theaters, the company released the film on the internet. Ironically the movie gained more attention because of the constant …show more content…
Many stood behind the release of the film after it was pulled from the theaters because they felt it was a violation of the freedom of speech. From the same article the writer states “While I’ll never agree that this film was remotely a good idea, suddenly I find myself rooting for its release purely from the standpoint of freedom of expression.” Having a film pulled because someone threated it, goes against the whole concept of freedom of speech which is one of the foundations of America. Therefore it would be understandable that many citizens would be upset, the writer also states “for some reason I just can’t justify a movie, no matter how stupid, getting pulled from theaters like this.” Seeing as this quote is coming from someone who thought that the movie is “pretty bad taste no matter how you look at it”, readers could tell that the general reaction to this film being taken from theaters is wrong. Another individual posted, F""k these terrorist threats. Now I'm going to see The Interview on Xmas day” in response to the threats made to movie theaters. Some saw the pulling of The Interview a loss for the country, and an overall shock that some would fall to the threats of terrorist. A twitter post from Newt Gingrich stating,” With the Sony collapse America has lost its first cyberwar.” However the Sony Pictures Entertainment CEO Michael Lynton has been quoted saying that they did not cave in nor did they give in, and going on to say that “it had no choice” but to halt
In the outsiders it has violence and also life lessons but do you think it's appropriate to read? The outsiders is mostly about two gang’s one of them are the greasers and the other one’s are the soc,The socs jumped the greasers.I believe the novel the outsiders should be banned in schools because it has to many violence, too much inappropriate language in the novel, and knives, drinking, killing, murders.
Through government censorship, many religious, and nonreligious, activities have been stopped, disrupted, and insulted throughout the years. In fact, it is not just government that do this. Many people tend to be bothered by such activities and also work towards stopping and/or disrupting them. "'We stand against the small tide of those who want to make everyone unhappy with conflicting theory and thought'” (Bradbury 59) This quote from the text is when Beatty explains to Montag the importance of firemen. This quote helps to show how in a dystopian government, there are people who interrupt others activities to maintain “order”. In 2016, a youtuber by the name of Adam Saleh was kicked off a plane for speaking in a different language. “I am upset that that’s happening, really upset,” the passenger said. “‘Is there freedom of speech? They can speak in whatever language they want to on the plane.’” “‘In the video, as Saleh panned the camera around the plane cabin, a few passengers waved. Several could be heard shouting: ‘Bye!’” (Wang, Amy “YouTube star known for pranks claims he was kicked off Delta flight for speaking Arabic”) These quotes from an article describe how while some believe that people deserve freedoms, others may disagree. Because of this, those with more power (in this case a greater majority) get the unfair
“Everyone loves free expression as long as it isn't exercised” (Rosenblatt 501). In the article, We are Free to Be You, Me, Stupid, and Dead, Roger Rosenblatt argues for the people’s right to freedom of speech and expression, that is given by the U.S Constitution. Rosenblatt argues that freedom of speech is one of the many reasons the Founding Fathers developed this country. For this reason, Rosenblatt believes that we should be tolerant and accepting of other’s ideas and beliefs. Even if one does not agree with someone else, they need to be understanding and realize that people have differing opinions. Everyone has the right to free expression, and this is what Rosenblatt is trying to get across. The necessity of freedom of expression and the important values it contains is a main foundation for this country, therefore, Rosenblatt’s argument is valid.
There should be no reason to ban Slaughterhouse five from high school seniors. The book does include violence, valgur language, comments on homosexualtity, filled with profanity and full of explicit sexual reference, makes references to religious matters but we as adults understand and learned what people went through when they were in war. Slaughterhouse five author Kurt Vonnegut shared experience of the main character in the book Billy Pilgrim who was “unstuck in time”. The author explained the experience of Billy Pilgrim during War in details and depth. The author used the phrase “so it goes” in the book 106 times throughout the novel. The author meant by this phrase that no one in the war can do anything to ignore the situation. In war there is no help. That's the way how Wars was. This phrase also teaches us the students that we should move on in life because time does not wait for anyone. The
Freedom of speech has been a controversial issue throughout the world. Our ability to say whatever we want is very important to us as individuals and communities. Although freedom of speech and expression may sometimes be offensive to other people, it is still everyone’s right to express his/her opinion under the American constitution which states that “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press”. Although this amendment gave people the right express thier opinions, it still rests in one’s own hands as how far they will go to exercise that right of freedom of speech.
Since it was written during a time of politically charged climate, people easily could have mistook this for a political commentary that it was not. People may have expected Boyle, an award-winning author, to be able to create a solution for the issues he was so apparently familiar with. On the other hand, another reason there may be backlash is because of Boyle’s nationality as an American. People may be skeptical that a man from New York should be writing on the issue in the first place, and are furthered frustrated when he does not provide a proper solution either. A final reason that there is backlash could stem from raw human emotion. An emotion provoking novel, The Tortilla Curtain could have angered readers as they find no happy ending for the serious problems created. Readers may have felt that the story provided in the novel was left unfinished. This is also the case with many issues today, a constant battle left unresolved. This is why although one can understand where backlash might be coming from, the expectation for Boyle to provide a solution in his book for a much greater issue is
Because it is a Constitutional right, the concept of freedom of speech is hardly ever questioned. “On its most basic level [freedom of speech] means you can express an opinion without fear of censorship by the government, even if that opinion is an unpopular one” (Landmark Cases). However, the actions of Americans that are included under “free speech,” are often questioned. Many people support the theory of “free speech,” but may oppose particular practices of free speech that personally offend them. This hypocrisy is illustrated by the case of Neo-Nazis whose right to march in Skokie, Illinois in 1979 was protested by many, but ultimately successfully defended by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The residents of this predominantly Jewish town which contained many Holocaust survivors were offended by the presence of the Neo-Nazis. However, then ACLU Executive Director Aryeh Neier, who...
By forbidding the reading of certain books, the first amendment rights of every American citizen are violated. The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution clearly states that all citizens have freedom of speech as well as freedom of press (Book Banning 1). By banning a book and making it so that no one can read it, the government is keeping the author from expressing their thoughts and opinions through press. The freedom of choice is also violated due to the inability of reading that particular book as an option. Not only the first amendment rights are violated, but also the academic freedom and diversity of thought guaranteed and protected by the constitution (Teachers 1). History will show that Americans do not take the violation of their rights lightly, and are more than likely to protest. Sometimes, in more extreme cases, they will rebel.
Censorship is a concept with several different meanings. To each individual censorship has its own meaning. Is it a violation of our rights or is it a protection for our well being? Censorship in the generic sense refers to the suppression of information, ideas, or opinions. It occurs in all forms of communication from technological media to print media. Each society, culture, or individual's belief is violated by the codes of censorship that our society instills.
There are certain groups of people that cause these events to happen. Because of them, there are people living in denial and people that are being ostracized every day. They do this because they are afraid that if they do not go along with what the majority does, their will be reprisal. Everyone wants to believe that people are basically good at nature. But with the events that occurred in the film, it is easy to see that people are easily influenced and would rather go along with the group than stand out and make a difference.
The article ¨Should There Be Limits on Freedom of Speech?” delineates when Salman Rushdie published his novel that consisted of many unfair statements about Muslims, there were many violent protests around the world as an outcome (1). Rushdie, the author of the very controversial novel, pleaded that the First Amendment protected his writings, but this is invalid. His writings caused riots that turned to be extremely violent where many people got hurt; furthermore, since his words caused this chaos, he is no longer protected. The Constitution does not provide any statements that prove that these people who start riots are to be protected under their rights. The American people must wake up and realize that their ignorant actions are not protected; moreover, their actions are their responsibility. They chose to speak their mind, so they must have to own up to the repercussions that follow. If a person is responsible for causing a riot that ends in many injuries, or even death, they should not be able to claim that the First Amendment protects their violations. The article continues with if a person were to stand up in front of a large or small crowd and purposely speak of topics that would begin a riot, they would not be protected under the First Amendment (1). Many individuals are unaware that as soon as they begin speaking of controversial topics, and purposely
Before seeing The Passion of the Christ I hadn't heard much about it except that it was very violent and politically incorrect. In fact I hadn't seen or heard a review that said if it was good or bad or if it was well acted or if it was worth the watch. Everyone just seemed to be interested in saying that it is too violent, the movie should not have been made and Mel Gibson shouldn't be making money from a story about Jesus. (It made $212m in its second weekend in the US)
...o school. The dissenting opinion simply argued that freedom of speech is not to be used as a disturbance. Therefore, those students’ right to expression or speech was not violated because it interfered with the classroom’s learning. There is a time and place for everything, and freedom of speech should not be used everywhere.
- This image might have inspired Bradbury to write Fahrenheit 451 since in the image they show university students burning books that have 'unGerman' ideas. I personally think that for them, 'unGerman' apparently means; ideas that don't please their leader. In the website provided, there is a statement said by a German-Jewish poet; "Where books are burned, human beings are destined to be burned too." This specific quote personally leaves me thinking that if they didn't hesitate in burning the books that contained information that didn't please their leader, they certainly wouldn't hesitate in killing a human being that went against their beliefs/ideas or government.
"What is at stake here it the right to read and be exposed to controversial, thoughts and language. The most effective antidote to the poison of mindless orthodoxy is ready access to a broad sweep of ideas and philosophies. There is no danger in such exposure. The danger is mind control especially when that control is exercised by a few over the majority" (qtd. in Hunt