#not wanting to even get into having a minor as a co writer and va | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

darkzeruda1214 · 5 years

Text

(MILD SPOILERS FOR THOSE WHO HASN’T SEEN THE SERIES YET)

Seriously there are some spoilers, I warning ye...

It shouldn’t come as a surprise that this series is good since Aaron Ehasz came in to co-creating the series. Being the head writer of Avatar the Last Airbender, it’s without a doubt he’s amazing at his job. And thankfully that hasn’t diminished over the years because the Dragon Prince is just that good of series.

Now granted I understand that everyone has different tastes, and what they consider good and what they don’t like.

But I say that if you liked Avatar the Last Airbender, then I totally recommend watching this series.

Also fun little fact if you haven’t already, but Jack De Sena (Sokka’s voice actor) comes back to play as the main character in The Dragon Prince, Callum.

(As well as a couple of other notable AtLA VA’s coming in to voice TDP characters. But I’ll let you guys find those in the series yourself)

A lot of the pros this series offers is quite a number of things, but I’ll stick with a few major good ones:

When it comes to worlds building, this series is at top notch. I haven’t seen such an interesting world since watching Avatar. So much that I want to know more about the world itself. The traditions, customs and all the regions that it will explore. The world definitely feels inspired by middle earth stuff as well as exploring the concept of magic. Feels like a mixture of both Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings. But in a way that it feel’s like it it’s own. And not like a copy and paste with a couple of minor adjustments. It genuinely feels and looks to be it’s own little world that breaths life.

The magic displayed in the series actually feels inspired but new it own sense. The magic derives from these primal sources consisting of the: the sun, moon, stars, earth, sky and the ocean. (Sounds familiar right?) and not only that the series’ seasons are split up into books just like Avatar has done, showing that it’s roots of inspiration still come from AtLA no doubt.

Another thing that this series is really strong and dependable in, are it’s characters. Each and every main character feels relatable and realistic. None of them feel 2 dimensional and all have backgrounds and reasons as to why they act they do. I think it’s more prominent with the show’s lead female Rayla, something about her shows there’s more to her than the show is trying to reveal.

Also, just in general the reason why the main three characters act the way they do feel like it’s something anyone would do in their situation. Unlike some franchises *cough* *cough* every character has a personality that fits them in a unique way. There’s not a single character in the show that I hate. Even Viren has his reasons, Chaotic good till the end.

And I’m not kidding, the show’s villain’s actions feel genuine and not just there to simply be an obstacle. His motives behind them are realistic and understandable and to see his past is what allows him to grow as an individual despite some of the bad choices he makes and have others do for him.

Not everything he does is intently bad (though it’s debatable).

And the music, don’t even get me started on the music. It just sets and brings the mood in the right temperature. It sounds ancient but at the same time new and fresh. Sharing traits from Avatar does help, yet create it as it so it belongs. It’s able to tell it’s own story, the mysteries, the surprise and the overall feeling the occurs in Xadia and the rest of the lands.

It’s simply that majestic.

-However, even with the pros there’s always going to be those cons. I can name a couple of in small instances that make me want to cringe. But it doesn’t cause me to “consider” stop watching the series.

Except for one.

The animation.

To me the animation is the weakest link in the series. Now it’s not the animators fault considering how low budget they were under. So they had to make due with what they got. But upon the positive reviews on the show, they got in a little extra incentive. And if you can get pass the 30 frames per second in the first book. It should still be an enjoyable series. The second book increases and ups it’s quality significantly.

And speaking of the second season.

Oh Man. Where do I start.

Season 2 grew a beard and a pair. It got dark. Quick. I didn’t expect something like this until later on the series. And the show isn’t afraid to touch up certain topics or brush over them and make it either essential to the plot or make the world feel alive.

I can’t really describe it, in simple words, it’s easier to understand once you watched it. I seriously do recommend this series.

Another complaint I have, is how short each book/season is. I understand that they may be on a time limit and possibly budget. But I would’ve liked having a couple of extra episodes each book. Because it just feels too short. But other than that small detail, this show is definitely worth watching.

All I’m waiting for now is book 3. (Edit book 3 is out, and if I thought book 2 grew a beard, book 3 grew a pair of balls).

Again the animation might be a bit nitpicky, but once you can stomach it, the show is definitely top grade. I can’t stress it enough. And why yes I do agree that everyone has their own interests and what they like to watch and I completely respect that. But if you are a fan of AtLA this show captures that spirit perfectly, and I can guarantee the characters are what make this series feel just as special. I won’t deny that the first few episodes might feel childish (and with good reason since the show is made for a younger audience) but it’s just the right amount of childish sprinkled with a hint of adult content (not that kind, though... there is one scene. But that’s not the point!) throughout the episodes.

#the dragon prince #netflix #a good cartoon series #don't judge it before giving it a try first #everyone has a right to like and dislike what they want #personal confessions #confess series #spoilers

11 notes · View notes

digitalmark18-blog · 6 years

Text

Should we shut down social media sites that spread hate and advocate violence?

New Post has been published on https://britishdigitalmarketingnews.com/should-we-shut-down-social-media-sites-that-spread-hate-and-advocate-violence/

Should we shut down social media sites that spread hate and advocate violence?

In October, Americans tracked the discovery of pipe bombs across the country and witnessed the slaughter of innocents at a grocery store in Louisville, Ky., and a synagogue in Pittsburgh. The perpetrators of these crimes were influenced by hate-filled propaganda.

Some might feel that a logical response to these incidents would be for the government to shut down media sources and organizations that spread hate and advocate violence. But in America’s open society, that would be unconstitutional. The First Amendment prohibits the government from censoring ideological expression.

But private companies, such as Twitter, do have policies that restrict the use of their platforms for hate speech. These policies are supported by the federal Communications Decency Act’s “Good Samaritan” provision, which permits the “blocking and screening of offensive material.” Though future court decisions may hold that social media platforms are the equivalent of the public square and must remain open even to offensive speech, for now private providers may police content posted on their platforms.

Challenges to the constitutionality of the Good Samaritan law have been unsuccessful except when brought against government-controlled platforms. Critics of President Donald Trump who had been blocked by the president from participating on his Twitter feed, for example, recently won the right to view and reply to that feed.

Future court decisions may hold that social media platforms are the equivalent of the public square and must remain open even to offensive speech.

The judge ruled that Mr. Trump uses the social media platform to issue presidential communications, so access to them cannot be limited. The First Amendment’s prohibition of government censorship also extends to the use of the courts to resolve private lawsuits. Claims against individuals and organizations that spread hate must be dismissed unless the disputed communication constitutes criminal behavior, such as “fighting words” or language that interferes with a protected civil right.

“Fighting words” are those that create a “clear and present danger” or are likely to induce a reasonable person to react violently. Context is important. A “drive by” slur is not enough to be defined as fighting words, but a barrage of abusive comments made in close quarters is likely to suffice. The law also permits recourse for true threats that cause a reasonable person to fear they will be physically attacked.

Moreover, spoken agreements to engage in a crime, as long as one co-conspirator takes action toward the commission of that crime, are punishable; and Section 1985 of the federal civil rights law establishes a private right to sue for damages caused by those who conspire against the civil rights of protected persons.

A lawsuit brought pursuant to Section 1985 against the organizers of the white nationalist rally held in 2017 in Charlottesville, Va., has survived a motion to dismiss. But lawsuits alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress caused by hate speech will not be successful unless the plaintiff demonstrates the defendant’s language was outrageous and unrelated to an issue of public concern.

Just a few weeks ago, Mr. Trump and his campaign organization won dismissal of a case, Nwanguma v. Trump, brought by three anti-Trump protesters who were assaulted during a 2016 rally held in Louisville. The plaintiffs were attacked after they expressed anti-Trump messages, and Mr. Trump urged the crowd to “get ’em out of here.”

The plaintiffs and their attackers argued that Mr. Trump should be held responsible because the attackers “acted pursuant to Trump’s instruction.” Nevertheless, the court determined, “Trump’s words may arguably have had a tendency to encourage unlawful use of force, but they did not specifically advocate for listeners to take unlawful action.”

“Trump’s words may arguably have had a tendency to encourage unlawful use of force, but they did not specifically advocate for listeners to take unlawful action.”

This lack of legal responsibility for the actions of others also applies to social media platforms. The same federal Communications Decency Act that permits “Good Samaritan” blocking of offensive content immunizes “interactive computer service” providers from liability for content they do not block. Even Gab.com, an outlet that advertises itself as non-censoring and was used regularly by Robert Bowers, the alleged gunman at the Tree of Life synagogue, will not be held liable for the actions of its participants. Currently, however, it has been silenced (“no-platformed”) by private internet and mobile service providers.

Hate-mongering is not the only speech protected by the First Amendment. Politicians and political advocates of all stripes enjoy near immunity from defamation lawsuits. The law provides a remedy for publicized false statements that harm the reputation of another, but opinions are never considered false.

U.S. Politics Catholic Discussion Group Facebook Group · 611 members Discuss politics with other America readers.

A public figure who sues for defamation also bears the burden of proving the speaker knew or should have known a statement was false. Outrageous comments made during public debate that are “extravagant exaggerations” or “heavily laden with emotional rhetoric and moral outrage” are protected by the First Amendment as “rhetorical hyperbole” rather than defamatory statements of fact, as a federal court ruled in its dismissal of Stephanie Clifford’s defamation lawsuit against President Trump.

Ms. Clifford, better known by her professional name Stormy Daniels, filed the suit after Mr. Trump mocked her accusation that a man threatened her to be quiet about her sexual relationship with Mr. Trump. In response to Ms. Clifford’s description of the man, Mr. Trump tweeted: “A sketch years later about a nonexistent man. A total con job, playing the Fake News Media for Fools (but they know it)!” Mr. Trump’s statements, even if false and harmful to Ms. Clifford, were deemed protected because they were made in a political context.

Free speech cases are fact-specific and not every lie is protected. A defamation case brought against Mr. Trump by Summer Zervos was not dismissed because Mr. Trump repeatedly made factual assertions that Ms. Zervos’s allegations of groping were lies. Nevertheless there likely are no legal remedies for statements made to denigrate a political rival or encourage hatred for a minority group.

The hope in our political system is that “truth will out,” and the populace will differentiate fact from fiction. But the law sometimes has strange consequences, and those who take action to demand the truth can find themselves liable to the “liars.” Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) statutes are designed to protect activists from costly and lengthy defamation lawsuits that have a chilling effect on protest and public discourse.

These laws, which exist in more than half the states, require judges to summarily dismiss complaints against, and grant attorneys’ fees to, defendants in certain situations, which vary from state to state. Texas, for example, has a very broad law that covers most statements concerning matters of public concern. On the other hand, the New York anti-SLAPP law applies only to statements made regarding an application for a public permit or license.

That means if a license-seeking utility company sues an environmental activist who makes a truthful claim that the utility has polluted a river, the lawsuit will be dismissed and the utility company will be ordered to pay the activist’s attorney’s fees and court costs. But anti-SLAPP statutes also award litigation costs to those whose statements may be false but are protected by the First Amendment as “rhetorical hyperbole.”

When used in this manner, anti-SLAPP statutes can repress rather than protect the truth and cheapen rather than enrich debate. After the Stormy Daniels defamation lawsuit was dismissed pursuant to the Texas anti-SLAPP law, Mr. Trump tweeted: “Great, now I can go after Horseface and her 3rd rate lawyer in the Great State of Texas.” Mr. Trump submitted a demand for $342,000. This amount may be reduced by the court, but Ms. Clifford likely will be required to pay a six-figure bill.

In the final analysis, laws can only do so much to protect us from hate-driven violence and rhetoric. Legislation can make it more difficult to buy weapons and ammunition, but hearts and minds are not converted by laws alone. We may have no legal liability for the comments we make (or do not make), the news stations we watch, the commentators we support or the politicians we elect, but as the recent violence around the nation demonstrates, these words and actions have consequences.

Want to discuss politics with other America readers? Join our Facebook discussion group, moderated by America’s writers and editors.

Source: https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2018/11/02/should-we-shut-down-social-media-sites-spread-hate-and-advocate

0 notes