John Small, a fourteen year old boy in Uptown St. Paul, proceeds into the Suburban World Cinema, anxious to see Abel Ferrara's Bad Lieutenant. He is equipped with a parental note, replete with the phone number where his parents can be reached to verify that they did indeed author the note should its authenticity be questioned. John pushes seven crumpled-up dollar bills and the folded note into the metal dugout under the box office window, only to be met with a tinny, disinterested voice booming through the round silver speaker mounted on the window: "No children under seventeen allowed! Sorry. This note isn't gonna cut it." The incident exemplifies a pressing issue in the ever-topical discussion of the oft-vilified film rating classification …show more content…
Rather than acting as parents or ignoring parental choices -- depending on the rating of the film being shown currently -- the owners should seek community involvement in deciding how parental choice will be verified. Perhaps some parents wish to record a "standing" permission for their children to view all films. Some communities may choose to have parental notes checked for all children on all films. After all, even the G-rated The Lion King was offensive to some, who perceived it to be racist or homophobic. This dialogue, carried out at the local level, can promote understanding and support between parents and theatre owners. Dialogue based on complete information promotes good decision-making. Rather than arbitrary, impressionistic censorship or pseudo-censorship, a collaboration among the film industry, the ratings board, the theatre owners, the parents, and the community will benefit both the art's creators and its …show more content…
"Annals of Communication: What Won't They Do?" The New Yorker 17 May 1993: 45-53. Beck, Henry Cabot. "A Little Less Romance." Premiere Oct. 1993: 39. Corliss, Richard. "Hollywood's Summer: Just Kidding." Time 28 Jun. 1993: 62-65. ---. "Whatever Became of the NC-17?" Time 27 Jan. 1992: 64. Ebert, Roger. "Not Your Basic 45 Seconds." Roger Ebert's Video Companion. 1994 ed. Kansas City: Andrews and McMeel. 816. ---. "On Movie Ratings for Kids." Roger Ebert's Video Companion. 1995 ed. Kansas City: Andrews and McMeel. 886-87. Goldberg, Danny. "Less Noblesse Oblige, Please: A Response to Philip Berroll." Tikkun Sep.- Oct. 1993: 45-48. "Murder Gets an 'R': Bad Language Gets an NC-17. Time 29 Aug. 1994: 68. Matthews, Tom Dewe. "Why Censorship Isn't Child's Play." New Statesmen & Society 8 Apr. 1994: 33-34. Schiffres, Roni. "Can Your Child Handle PG-13?" Parents Jul. 1994: 79-82. Svetkey, Benjamin. "Why Movie Ratings Don't Work." Entertainment Weekly 25 Nov. 1994: 26-33. Valenti, Jack. "Hollywood, the Rating System and the Movie-going Public." USA Today Magazine Sep. 1993: 87-89. Wall, James M. "Unrestricted: The Ratings Game." The
Hinks, Pete P. To Awaken My Afflicted Brethren: David Walker and the Problem of Antebellum Slave Resistance. 1997
In 1968 Jack Valenti, the president of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), established the Classification and Ratings Administration (CARA) in an effort to reduce the amount of objectionable material in film. Before 1968, the MPAA required that all films follow the guidelines of the Production Code. The Production Code stipulated what was and was not appropriate to appear in films. In 1966, the MPAA elected Jack Valenti president and he changed the code to a rating system based on the amount of objectionable content in a film. The rating system went through several amendments until the current rating system. A controversy arose when The Weinstein Co. film Blue Valentine received an NC-17 rating for a sexually explicit scene involving the main characters in the film. The controversy over the rating of the film stirred up the question of the effectiveness of the MPAA rating system. Critics were already questioning the effectiveness of the MPAA, but the recent controversy helped to stimulate those questions. The rating system that the MPAA enforces on films is ineffective.
Euthanasia is a controversy that cannot be resolved from a single court ruling or a single person’s opinion. Many proposals have been suggested based on various studies and surveys. In “You Say Murder, I Say Euthanasia,” Clair Rayner describes a notable proposal regarding extreme euthanasia cases. The proposal, which has been put into the Science of Museum forum, recommends complex cases to be considered individually. In “Assisted Suicide Largely Shunned,” the anonymous author offers statistics that oppose the ethics of euthanasia.
In today’s world of multimedia it has become extremely hard to avoid the introduction of adult themes to younger children, who lack the maturity to process and question the information. Young people are bombarded continually with unsuitable and undesirable concepts that give false images of acceptable behavior. Music, movies, television, internet and video games are accredited with the moral deterioration of present day youth. Great strides have been made to establish rating guidelines, parental controls and warning labels that assist adults in making informed choices on what their children should or should not be able to access but they are not perfect.
We are all human beings and deserve to be treated fairly and with kindness unless we have displayed a reason to do otherwise. We as a nation cannot live in fear because a group of horrible individuals completed a devastating act. These acts may have shaken us as a nation but it should not break us completely and cause us to treat innocent people unfairly and without respect.
Before any argument can be made against racial profiling, it is important to understand what racial profiling is. The American Civil Liberties Union, defines racial profiling as "the discriminatory practice by law enforcement officials of targeting individuals for suspicion of crime based on the individual's race, ethnicity, religion or national origin"(Racial Profiling: Definition). Using this definition we can determine that racial profiling excludes any evidence of wrong-doing and relies solely on the characteristics listed above. We can also see that racial profiling is different from criminal profiling, which uses evidence of wrong-doing and facts which can include information obtained from outside sources and evidence gathered from investigation. Based on these definitions, I will show that racial profiling is unfair and ineffective because it relies on stereotyping, encourages discrimination, and in many cases can be circumvented.
Even the United States struggles with issues of racial discrimination despite being a society highly based on immigrants and multicultural diversity. On one hand, people frown on treatment based on race, whether that is on an individual or group level. On the other, people are tired and annoyed by the seemingly constant call of discrimination. All of these feelings culminate into the debate pertaining to the use of racial profiling. Likewise, there are some individuals that hold a certain level of acceptance in regard to racial profiling. However, what is lost in the process because of that acceptance? There are many components that need to be thought about in reference to the use of racial profiling. In addition, it can be viewed from varying perspectives, such as through the use of statistics, by looking at social norms and taking into account moral/ethical values. Although racial profiling has been denounced, its use has continued to come up repeatedly. Furthermore, it is very apparent that certain circumstances cause the use concept of racial profiling to resurface.
In review, euthanasia is performed when the pain is too much for the patient. It is, overall, the patient’s life—their right and their choice. Everyone deserves to die compassionately, knowing that they will slip away painlessly. Everyone deserves to have a choice, especially when it comes to the manner of their death. If euthanasia is not legalized, many people will debilitating illnesses may take their lives in much more horrific ways. If they want the suffering to end badly enough, it is simply done one way or
Racial Profiling and the racism aspect of it continue the legacy of disadvantage to black people compared to whites. It is safe to say that racial profiling is quite plausibly, an example of racist habits and ideas. Another reason for the excuse of profiling racially is to supposedly lower black on black crime. It was showed that in 2011 685,724 people were stopped. Instead the outcome of this is usually the opposite at the same time it is political ways to make the residence of the white communities feel secure and safe. If the police truly want to reduce crime, why don’t they stop treating black people as criminals and start treating them as victims. More than 80 percent of stop and frisk due to racial profiling were found
Racial profiling and the various problems that arise as a result of it bring up many controversial issues. Racial profiling is a topic that weighs heavy on the minds and opinions of many in this country. It has been the subject of many disagreements as to whether or not it actually exists. Some argue that certain races can’t see it because they never experience it, but a case can be made that all races experience it at some point. One of the most controversial is the debate of whether or not racial profiling is justified. One of the hindrances to finding an answer to this question is the fact that many agencies and departments in law enforcement refuse to cooperate with studies to
Larson, Edward J. “Legalizing Euthanasia Would Encourage Suicide” Euthanasia- Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Carol Wesseker. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1995. 78-83. Print.
There is no doubt that movies entertain a person. However, over sexualized movies have the capability of poisoning minds which are easily shapeable-for example Fifty shades of gray. Children are told not to view it, however that does nothing to stop the viewing of the movie. Not only does it corrupt young minds it hands them unlimited access to the findings of adult
Today, medical interventions have made it possible to save or prolong lives, but should the process of dying be left to nature? (Brogden, 2001). Phrases such as, “killing is always considered murder,” and “while life is present, so is hope” are not enough to contract with the present medical knowledge in the Canadian health care system, which is proficient of giving injured patients a chance to live, which in the past would not have been possible (Brogden, 2001). According to Brogden, a number of economic and ethical questions arise concerning the increasing elderly population. This is the reason why the Canadian society ought to endeavor to come to a decision on what is right and ethical when it comes to facing death. Uhlmann (1998) mentions that individuals’ attitudes towards euthanasia differ. From a utilitarianism point of view – holding that an action is judged as good or bad in relation to the consequence, outcome, or end result that is derived from it, and people choosing actions that will, in a given circumstance, increase the overall good (Lum, 2010) - euthanasia could become a means of health care cost containment, and also, with specific safeguards and in certain circumstances the taking of a human life is merciful and that all of us are entitled to end our lives when we see fit.
Nowadays, the media has a greater influence than ever on what the public believes and accepts. Research shows that the amount and realism of violence and sex in movies has skyrocketed, influencing the views of our generation. However, little to no attention is placed on the effects of movies on our views of racism, sexism, classism, and heteronormativity. Before watching a movie, you can get a general idea of how much sex and violence it will contain, in order to decide if it is appropriate for you. However, how can one tell if a movie is too racist, sexist, classist, or heteronormative for his/her viewing pleasure? What makes a movie racist, sexist, classist, or heteronormative for certain audiences, and not others? My take on the Motion Picture Association of America’s rating system serves to tackle these questions and bring light to the media’s influence on our views on racism, sexism, classism, and heternormativity. My audience for this rating system is primarily parents, who are easily offended by the racism, sexism, classism, and heteronormativity present in the media. They would likely care the most about the presentation of these ideologies in a movie, since they would not want their children to be influenced by the views portrayed in the films they watch.
“One of the most important public policy debates today surrounds the issues of euthanasia and assisted suicide. The outcome of that debate will profoundly affect family relationships, interaction between doctors and patients, and concepts of basic ethical behavior. With so much at stake, more is needed than a duel of one-liners, slogans and sound bites.”