Moreover, as a rule, artists are considered as trend-makers whose behaviors and lifestyles often draw public's attention. Considering such profound influences their ways of life exert on normal people, the government should impose constraints on what can be made available to the public and what not. Secondly, it is thought that freedom is a source of inspiration in creating arts. Artists, if so obsessed by prosecution, would become unable to compose any great masterworks as being inhibited. Humans therefore might fail to establish their distinct cultural identity through
The publicity of the case and the one-sided role of the media caused a majority of people, internationally, to be biased and influenced. This impact then led to numerous problems and difficulties in being treated fairly, such as finding an impartial jury. This factor of having preconceived idea meant that the jury had already decided Lindy Chamberlain’s fate, opposing the justice being “served,” legitimately. Wiping away any chance for Lindy Chamberlain to prove her innocence creates an inevitable outcome. The Chamberlains being judged under a heavily biased jury influenced by the media, therefore shows the maltreatment of the case by the justice system and the society.
Even in “free” countries like the United States there is still corruption, or “plunder” as Bastiat would say, that put limitations on citizen’s natural freedoms. Bastiat claims “We hold from God the gift which, as far as we are concerned, contains all others, Life-physical, intellectual, and moral life (Bastiat 5).” These are rights that Basiat believes is only what the government should protect. Once those rights are protected, however, it is up to the people to keep their government accountable for perversions in laws that would essentially limit them to their natural rights in any way. His explanations of various situations of bad government laws paint a picture of what has gone on in history and still goes on today. The first point that Bastiat highlighted in the book was “If every man has the right of defending, even by force, his person, his liberty, and his property, a number of men have the right to combine together, to extend, to organize a common force, to provide regularly for this defense (Bastiat 6).” This made me think that Bastiat was basically approving the American Revolution and suggesting that other countries in Europe at this point in history have the right to be revolutionizing their governments the
Without the $102,608,648 given to the NEA to fund art programs (Source F), many artists would become broke and lose the ability to create the art they hold so dear. Additionally, government decisions to limit grants towards the NEA strips artists of the individual rights listed in the U.S constitution. Source B agrees with this statement by assuring that “if the state were free to deny funds to those whose speech it finds disagreeable, freedom of expression would be rendered meaningless.” The government is essentially abusing their powers and violating the U.S constitution by limiting artists of their natural born rights. Once again, due to improper government action, progression of the arts is diminished. Artists should
Dillard’s can’t afford any negative publicity regarding such issues. Dillard’s has to be aware of the potential devastation of laws suite involving discrimination of any type. There should be a training program set up for employees in order to educate and avoid potential litigation. Foreign trade can be a very risky business. Among all the risks involved with international trade, the political ones are more difficult to measure.
Though there still exists many restrictions on what one can depict on TV and in movies, many citizens argue that we need more regulations on what can and can not be seen in the theater or one's living room. However, these loosing of the bonds on television and cinema is, in actuality, a liberation of creative freedom that artists in America rightly deserve. That is not to say that sex and violence should always be considered creative expression, but in the battle to protect our morals, it is morally wrong to chain down our nation's artists with restrictions that hold back their ability to channel their creative vision and hold the mirror up to society and life. The primary purpose of the visual arts is to reflect, in one medium or another, our history as a society and the nature of our existence as human beings. This is the duty of filmmakers.
This is definitely unethical. When more than a minor medical issue arises, the ethical thing for the physician assistant to do is take the patient to a practical setting and take the normal course of actions (2013). Joe is breaking this by taking kits out of the practice area into his own home without consent of the physician or the facility as a whole. The guidelines go over the importance of not providing informal care, which is exactly what Joe is doing in this situation. He is not only informally treating and collecting specimen from his daughter, but he is also not documenting any of the treatments that he is doing.
People may feel disrespected if they find out that the funds are used to support offensive work of art instead of using them to help solve some problems of the country. For me, the decision whether an artwork is censored or not, goes to the people viewing the “art”. Each of us has our own beliefs and we know what’s right from wrong. No one will get hurt if we find a certain art offensive. If we decide not to see
“The more our government sanctions torture, the more that high-level officials do not face censure, the more our democracy erodes”(Cusac 141). Regardless, the effectiveness of certain interrogation methods, under the International Law, it is not acceptable. The actions that exemplify crime and punishment are not appropriate on television. We need to stop supporting this kind of entertainment on television, and protect our society from being influenced through televisions message. The need to show that there are rules and rights of humans rather than television being in contradiction of the human rights side of our
My criticism of this theory is that thought processes without emotions make our decisions too concrete. When we treat people in the medical field, we cannot say it is a rule that everyone must received a blood transfusion if they are below a set number because we are not thinking about the consequences of the person we are treating. Some religions believe that blood transfusions are toxic to their being and would never want to receive a transfusion, so I believe that