Answer:
Social media has not only changing the ways people communication, it also has ability to redistribute the power, especially among governments and citizens. Nowadays, with the development of social networking, the power of changing the world is not only the leaders, according to a study from HAVAS GLOBAL COMMS (2013), the single greatest “agent of change” is “the people, empowered by social media”. Social media effect on political sphere by shifting who controls the information, how to distribute that information and how it be changed.
Before the social media era, people are just passive accept the information from government, their opinions are not easy to express. In the traditional media world, it only can use mass media as the way to carry out one-to-many information. Corporations, governments or other groups controlled the information conveyed with laws or sometimes “simply by owning the means of distribution” (Bennett, 2011). The owner of the information has the ability to control what the information is transmitted and how the information is framed.
I hope this helps! :)
Goods that are considered to be needs tend to be inelastic when the price changes.
The law of moral cause-and-effect is called the law of Karma.
Depending on whoever you ask, there are several opinions on what karma really is. While some adhere to the traditional interpretation rooted in Eastern religions, others interpret it more in line with a Western conception of good and evil. This can consequently result in various interpretations of how karma functions in life. This law states that whatever ideas or energy one put out, one receives back, whether it's positive or negative. One must embody and merit the things they want in order to obtain them. It's the idea that you harvest what one sows. Memories and wants are shaped by karma, which then dictates how one lives. The karmic software that controls one's existence is comprised of actions, memories, and desires.
To learn more about the Law of Karma refer to:
brainly.com/question/18175497
#SPJ1
Answer:
The correct answer is C. A judge could throw out the teen's confession unless the officer complies with the ruling in Miranda v. Arizona.
Explanation:
Miranda v. Arizona is a ruling of the United States Supreme Court from 1966. The case established the current practice whereby a suspect is required to read his or her rights (the so-called Miranda rights) without exception, which state the right to before a preliminary investigation of the suspect has begun.
That was the decision in Ernesto Miranda's trial. Miranda was arrested on suspicion of kidnapping and sexual assault of an 18-year-old girl on prima facie evidence. After two hours of questioning, Miranda signed the confession. However, he had never been informed of the possibility of meeting a legal adviser or of being silent, and that his confession could not be used against him. During the trial, Miranda's attorney, Alvin Moore, argued that confession would therefore not apply in court. Moore's objection was rejected and Miranda was sentenced to a lengthy prison sentence. The Arizona Supreme Court also upheld the ruling.
The United States Supreme Court, by a vote of 5 to 4, ruled that, due to the Fifth and Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, no confession would be valid unless the suspect was informed of his rights. The Fifth Amendment states that no one can be compelled to testify against himself and the Sixth Addendum secures access to a lawyer. Ernesto Miranda's judgment was overturned, but he was later sentenced to prison for the same case, based on other evidence.
Answer:
In sociology and social psychology, an in-group is a social group to which a person psychologically identifies as being a member. By contrast, an out-group is a social group with which an individual does not identify.
Explanation:
