Anti-Hero Called “V” John Doe ENG 225 Introduction to Film No one June 16‚ 2012 Anti-Hero Called “V” V for Vendetta in many ways is a movie that has been done before. It presents a post apocalyptic landscape (ex: 1984 (1984)‚ Clockwork Orange (1971)) where a totalitarian leadership rises from the ashes of chaos offering salvation‚ only to deliver oppression to the masses while demanding blind obedience in return‚ or else! In this society/film we are given the various archetype villains
Premium V for Vendetta Totalitarianism Nineteen Eighty-Four
As a cause and as a symptom of social hierarchies‚ division of labor is an integral part of the structuring of society. Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim both give very different interpretations to the effects causing‚ evolving‚ and caused by this division of labor. On one hand‚ Marx typically vilifies the process‚ finding it in large part responsible for the oppression of one group by another. On the other hand‚ Durkheim treats it as a unifying social force‚ one necessarily maintained for the betterment
Premium Sociology
BRENNAN‚ J.‚ Opinion of the Court SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 491 U.S. 397 Texas v. Johnson CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS No. 88-155 Argued: March 21‚ 1989 --- Decided: June 21‚ 1989 JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court. After publicly burning an American flag as a means of political protest‚ Gregory Lee Johnson was convicted of desecrating a flag in violation of Texas law. This case presents the question whether his conviction is consistent
Premium First Amendment to the United States Constitution
NOTES OF CASES THECASEOF THE SLIPPERY EQUITY IN Re Vandervell’s Trusts (No. 2)‚’ Lord Denning M.R. said: “ (‘ Hard cases make bad law ’) is a maxim which is quite misleading. It should be deleted from our vocabulary. It comes to this: ‘Unjust decisions make good law’: whereas they do nothing of the kind. Every unjust decision is a reproach to the law or to the judge who administers it.”a Now that it has been decided that there is to be no appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal‚ it is worth
Premium Law Common law Criminal law
29. Introduction 30. The decision of the House of Lords in Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [1] evinces the accuracy of Gooley’s observation that the separate legal entity doctrine was a "two-edged sword".[2] At a general level‚ it was a good decision. By establishing that corporations are separate legal entities‚ Salomon’s case endowed the company with all the requisite attributes with which to become the powerhouse of capitalism. At a particular level‚ however‚ it was a bad decision. By extending the
Premium Corporation Limited liability company
�PAGE � Marbury v. Madison Introduction The case "Marbury v. Madison began on March‚ 1801‚ when a Proponent‚ William Marbury‚ was assigned as a magistrate in the District of Columbia. William Marbury and various others were constituted to government posts made by United States Congress in the last days of President John Adams’s administration; merely these eleventh hour appointments were never completely nailed down. The dissatisfied appointees raised an act of US Congress and litigated for their
Free Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution
Henry V – William Shakespeare There can be little doubt that Shakespeare intended to present his protagonist in “Henry V” as the popular hero-king. His efforts are mainly concentrated on the portraiture of this “star of England”‚ King Henry‚ whom he deliberately chose out of the page of history as the finest representative of the best distinctive type of English character. He wanted his play to lead triumphantly to an English victory against overwhelming odds at Agincourt. What is not agreed among
Premium Henry VI of England Henry V of England Henry IV of England
[1893] 1 Q.B. 256 1892 WL 9612 (CA)‚ [1893] 1 Q.B. 256 (Cite as: [1893] 1 Q.B. 256) Page 1 *256 Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company. In the Court of Appeal. CA Lindley‚ Bowen and A. L. Smith‚ L.JJ. 1892 Dec. 6‚ 7. Contract--Offer by Advertisement--Performance of Condition in Advertisement-- Notification of Acceptance of Offer--Wager--Insurance--8 & 9 Vict. c. 109-- 14 Geo. 3‚ c. 48‚ s. 2. The defendants‚ the proprietors of a medical preparation called "The Carbolic Smoke Ball‚" issued an
Premium Contract Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company Invitation to treat
Salomon v A Salomon and Co Ltd (Salomon) has created an impressive case in English Law history. The decision of the House of Lords in Salomon has reaffirmed the separate legal personality of a company. A separate legal personality is also known as the corporate personality. It is one of the consequences of the Company Act 2006 which incorporated a sole trader company to a limited company. When a company has undergone incorporation‚ it simply means that the shareholders of the company are separated
Premium Corporation Limited liability
Assessment Item 1 Supreme Court of New South Wales Decision Peter Smythe v Vincent Thomas (2007) NSW SC 844 (3 August 2007) Part A Question 1 The case was heard in the New South Wales Supreme Court‚ Equity Division. Question 2 The name of the judge was Nigel Rein Nigel Rein was an Acting Judge of the Supreme Court of NSW (Equity Division). Question 3 Plaintiff is: Peter Smythe Council for the Plaintiff is: B Kasep Defendant is: Vincent Thomas Council for the Defendant is:
Premium Contract