Saturday, March 21, 2009
Dissent
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Michigan’s admissions policy is constitutional. Justices Anthony Kennedy, William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas dissented. These justices did not believe that the law school’s admissions process was used to obtain a “critical mass”.
In part of Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia’s dissent they argued that if “Michigan could not remain an elite institution and admit students under a race-neutral system, the Law School should be forced to choose between its classroom aesthetic and its exclusionary admissions system." (http://ballotpedia.org)
They also challenged the length of time the admissions policy will be lawful. In part of Justice Thomas’s dissent he said, "I therefore can understand the imposition of a 25-year time limit only as a holding that the deference the Court pays to the Law School's educational judgments and refusal to change its admissions policies will itself expire. At that point these policies will clearly have failed to "'eliminate the [perceived] need for any racial or ethnic'" discrimination because the academic credentials gap will still be there… For the immediate future, however, the majority has placed its imprimatur on a practice that can only weaken the principle of equality embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Equal Protection Clause.” (http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/grutter%20v.%20bollinger%20-%20the%20supreme%20court%27s%20decision/id/5103594)
Chief Justice Rehnquist felt that the school’s admissions policy was based on a quota system that was ruled unconstitutional in California v. Bakke. Using admissions statistics, the Chief Justice noted the “tight association between the percentage of applicants and admittees of a given race and argued that the numbers were far too precise to be dismissed as merely the result of the school paying 'some attention to [the] numbers.’” (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/23/scotus.affirmative.action/)
In part of Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia’s dissent they argued that if “Michigan could not remain an elite institution and admit students under a race-neutral system, the Law School should be forced to choose between its classroom aesthetic and its exclusionary admissions system." (http://ballotpedia.org)
They also challenged the length of time the admissions policy will be lawful. In part of Justice Thomas’s dissent he said, "I therefore can understand the imposition of a 25-year time limit only as a holding that the deference the Court pays to the Law School's educational judgments and refusal to change its admissions policies will itself expire. At that point these policies will clearly have failed to "'eliminate the [perceived] need for any racial or ethnic'" discrimination because the academic credentials gap will still be there… For the immediate future, however, the majority has placed its imprimatur on a practice that can only weaken the principle of equality embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Equal Protection Clause.” (http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/grutter%20v.%20bollinger%20-%20the%20supreme%20court%27s%20decision/id/5103594)
Chief Justice Rehnquist felt that the school’s admissions policy was based on a quota system that was ruled unconstitutional in California v. Bakke. Using admissions statistics, the Chief Justice noted the “tight association between the percentage of applicants and admittees of a given race and argued that the numbers were far too precise to be dismissed as merely the result of the school paying 'some attention to [the] numbers.’” (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/23/scotus.affirmative.action/)
My Own Argument
I agree with the decision of the court. Affirmative action shouldn’t be necessary but the reality of the world that we live in it unfortunately it is necessary. I think that an important part of their ruling is that the court said that this is not a permanent policy. The Law School said that it would like to find a race-neutral admissions process and will discontinue its use of racial preferences as soon as possible. I think that is a step in the right direction toward creating racial equality in the admissions process. The focus of admissions decisions needs to be based on the education and credentials of the applicant and the race of the applicant should not be a deciding factor in any application. I hope that Sandra Day O’Connor was right when she said, “We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today." (http://www.npr.org/news/specials/michigan/) Hopefully someone studying this case 30 years from now will wonder why affirmative action policies were ever needed and be writing that they disagree with the decision of the court.
Rule of Law
The Court decided that as long as race wasn’t the deciding factor in a students admissions it was ok as long as it’s purpose is to create a “diverse class”. (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/future/landmark_grutter.html) It would be unconstitutional to use a quota system based on race, but a school's use of affirmative action to accept more minority applicants will be considered constitutional in some circumstances. “The court did not reject the use of racial preferences to encourage diversity. Rather, it insisted that students be evaluated as individuals with race being only one of the many factors considered.” (http://www.apa.org/psyclaw/grutter-v-boll.html)
Following the decision, petitions were circulated to change the Michigan State Constitution. The measure, called Proposal 2, passed and changed the admissions processes at the Law School. Proposal 2 joins California's Proposition 209 and Washington's Initiative 200 as initiatives that ban the use of racial preference in public university admissions.
Following the decision, petitions were circulated to change the Michigan State Constitution. The measure, called Proposal 2, passed and changed the admissions processes at the Law School. Proposal 2 joins California's Proposition 209 and Washington's Initiative 200 as initiatives that ban the use of racial preference in public university admissions.
First Monday in October
I don’t think that there will ever not be an issue with appointing a woman to any position of power. I’m sure that there are many qualified women whose names are being mentioned to replace Ruth Ginsberg if she needs to step down, but should only women be considered? No. There shouldn’t be a need to fill a quota of women on the Supreme Court. There should be more emphasis on appointing someone that will do a great job then just focusing on his or her sex or race.
Justice Snow didn’t feel like he needed to see the viewing of this movie because no matter what content was in the film, he felt that it was ok because of the first amendment in the constitution. Justice Loomis was the only one to watch the entire film. Therefore I think that she is the only one who can give a valid argument if it is appropriate for the public’s consumption or not. Despite her conservative values she still gave the film a chance to see if it had any artistic merit.
If you want to watch offensive videos on your own time in the privacy of your own home, go for it. But these things should not be made readily available for children and should not be shoved in the faces of people that are offended by them. Personally, I think that pornography is degrading and disgusting, but it’s one of those things that is never going to go away. The issues of the film are very relevant today. I think that it was easier in the 70’s to regulate the pornography industry because the films were shown in theaters. Today it is more difficult to regulate because of how easy it is for anyone to stumble upon porn on the internet, even by accident.
Justice Snow didn’t feel like he needed to see the viewing of this movie because no matter what content was in the film, he felt that it was ok because of the first amendment in the constitution. Justice Loomis was the only one to watch the entire film. Therefore I think that she is the only one who can give a valid argument if it is appropriate for the public’s consumption or not. Despite her conservative values she still gave the film a chance to see if it had any artistic merit.
If you want to watch offensive videos on your own time in the privacy of your own home, go for it. But these things should not be made readily available for children and should not be shoved in the faces of people that are offended by them. Personally, I think that pornography is degrading and disgusting, but it’s one of those things that is never going to go away. The issues of the film are very relevant today. I think that it was easier in the 70’s to regulate the pornography industry because the films were shown in theaters. Today it is more difficult to regulate because of how easy it is for anyone to stumble upon porn on the internet, even by accident.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Reasoning of the Court
In March 2001, U.S. District Court Judge Bernard A. Friedman ruled that the admissions policies were unconstitutional because they consider race and are use a quota system that was previously ruled unconstitutional. In May 2002, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision, referred to the Regents of University of California v. Bakke decision allowing the use of race to bring diversity to the school.
In the court's ruling, Justice O'Connor's majority opinion held that the United States Constitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body." (http://www.ur.umich.edu/0203/June16_03/14_opinion_law.shtml) She also said that. “in the context of its individualized inquiry into the possible diversity contributions of all applicants, the Law School's race-conscious admissions program does not unduly harm nonminority applicants." (http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_02_241/) She hoped that one day affirmative action would not be necessary but until that day comes the law schools policy was just a means to bring diversity to the school. The court said that this should not be a permanent policy. The Law School said that it would like to find a race-neutral admissions process and will discontinue its use of racial preferences as soon as possible. "Race-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time. The Court takes the Law School at its word that it would like nothing better than to find a race-neutral admissions formula and will terminate its use of racial preferences as soon as practicable. The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today." (http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/grutter%20v.%20bollinger%20-%20the%20supreme%20court%27s%20decision/id/5103594)
Public universities and institutes of higher education are now allowed to use race as a factor in their admissions processes. Race may not be the only factor, but may be taken into consideration. As long as the schools admissions process meets those guidelines, the court will uphold it as Constitutional.
http://www.aclu.org/scotus/2002/21845res2003022002241/21845res20030220.html
http://academic.udayton.edu/Race/04needs/affirm14.htm
In the court's ruling, Justice O'Connor's majority opinion held that the United States Constitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body." (http://www.ur.umich.edu/0203/June16_03/14_opinion_law.shtml) She also said that. “in the context of its individualized inquiry into the possible diversity contributions of all applicants, the Law School's race-conscious admissions program does not unduly harm nonminority applicants." (http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_02_241/) She hoped that one day affirmative action would not be necessary but until that day comes the law schools policy was just a means to bring diversity to the school. The court said that this should not be a permanent policy. The Law School said that it would like to find a race-neutral admissions process and will discontinue its use of racial preferences as soon as possible. "Race-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time. The Court takes the Law School at its word that it would like nothing better than to find a race-neutral admissions formula and will terminate its use of racial preferences as soon as practicable. The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today." (http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/grutter%20v.%20bollinger%20-%20the%20supreme%20court%27s%20decision/id/5103594)
Public universities and institutes of higher education are now allowed to use race as a factor in their admissions processes. Race may not be the only factor, but may be taken into consideration. As long as the schools admissions process meets those guidelines, the court will uphold it as Constitutional.
http://www.aclu.org/scotus/2002/21845res2003022002241/21845res20030220.html
http://academic.udayton.edu/Race/04needs/affirm14.htm
Decision of the Court
On June 23, 2003 the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the University of Michigans Law school affirmitive action program. The vote was decided 5-4. Judge Sandra Day O’Connor had the deciding vote. She said that unfortunately affirmative action is still necessary but "We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today." (http://www.npr.org/news/specials/michigan/) The Court decided that as long as race wasn’t the deciding factor in a students admissions it was ok as long as it’s purpose is to create a “diverse class”. (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/future/landmark_grutter.html)
The Court used precedent from a previous case Regents of University of California v. Bakke. In 1978 this case was also decided 5-4 and ruled that a state may constitutionally consider race as a factor in its admissions to promote diversity, but only if race is considered alongside other factors and on a case-by-case basis. The Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to use a quota system based on race, but a school's use of affirmative action to accept more minority applicants was constitutional in some circumstances.
In Grutter v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court backed up Bakke's basic approach and ruled that University of Michigan Law School's policy of giving significant but non-determinative weight to its applicants' race was "neutral" enough, and Michigan's interest in a diverse student body was "compelling" enough, to meet constitutionally standards of equality. (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_regents.html)
The Court used precedent from a previous case Regents of University of California v. Bakke. In 1978 this case was also decided 5-4 and ruled that a state may constitutionally consider race as a factor in its admissions to promote diversity, but only if race is considered alongside other factors and on a case-by-case basis. The Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to use a quota system based on race, but a school's use of affirmative action to accept more minority applicants was constitutional in some circumstances.
In Grutter v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court backed up Bakke's basic approach and ruled that University of Michigan Law School's policy of giving significant but non-determinative weight to its applicants' race was "neutral" enough, and Michigan's interest in a diverse student body was "compelling" enough, to meet constitutionally standards of equality. (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_regents.html)
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Issues of the Case
Grutter v. Bollinger involved a challenge to the University of Michigan's law school affirmative action program. This case was brought before the Supreme Court after Grutter was victorious in U.S. District Court, but lost in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Grutter appealed that ruling in the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court. This case “tested whether the university is allowed to discriminate because it values diversity in its student body, or whether discrimination is only justified to reverse past racial injustice. “ (http://www.npr.org/news/specials/michigan/) It brought to light whether minorities were being accepted to colleges based on their qualifications or simply based on their race. It was a unique case because it was the first time a white student claimed she was being discriminated. “The University of Michigan cases were the most significant test of affirmative action to reach the court in a generation. At issue was whether racial preference programs unconstitutionally discriminate against white students.” (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/23/scotus.affirmative.action/)
The University of Michigan cases were the most noteworthy test of affirmative action in recent years. The University used a point system for admissions, they ranked each applicant on a 150-point scale, with 100 points generally resulting in admission to the college. Belonging to a historically discriminated-against racial group resulted in an automatic bonus of 20 points. “The university acknowledges it has used race as a factor in admissions, relying on a complicated point scale to rate applicants. Grades and academics are most important, but members of "under-represented" racial and ethic minority groups have received extra points.” (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/23/scotus.affirmative.action/) Grutter’s lawyers argued that this was unconstitutional and gave minority students an unfair advantage, “equivalent to a full grade point on a student's GPA.” (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/23/scotus.affirmative.action/)
This case confirmed and polished the Supreme Court's position on affirmative action. “The Court made clear that affirmative action programs are only constitutional if they consider race as one factor in an individualized evaluation, and only to achieve the goal of "class diversity." (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/future/landmark_grutter.html)
This case allowed affirmative action plans to stay in place, but set a precedent for other schools to not make it the most important factor when considering a student for admissions.
The University of Michigan cases were the most noteworthy test of affirmative action in recent years. The University used a point system for admissions, they ranked each applicant on a 150-point scale, with 100 points generally resulting in admission to the college. Belonging to a historically discriminated-against racial group resulted in an automatic bonus of 20 points. “The university acknowledges it has used race as a factor in admissions, relying on a complicated point scale to rate applicants. Grades and academics are most important, but members of "under-represented" racial and ethic minority groups have received extra points.” (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/23/scotus.affirmative.action/) Grutter’s lawyers argued that this was unconstitutional and gave minority students an unfair advantage, “equivalent to a full grade point on a student's GPA.” (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/23/scotus.affirmative.action/)
This case confirmed and polished the Supreme Court's position on affirmative action. “The Court made clear that affirmative action programs are only constitutional if they consider race as one factor in an individualized evaluation, and only to achieve the goal of "class diversity." (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/future/landmark_grutter.html)
This case allowed affirmative action plans to stay in place, but set a precedent for other schools to not make it the most important factor when considering a student for admissions.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Supreme Court Case Update...
So far, I have done internet research on my case Grutter vs. Bollinger. I’ve found 6 new resources to use on my project including articles on the case from CNN, NPR, PBS, The University of Michigan, Cornell and Findlaw.com. I am getting a good grasp on understanding my case, and the only problem that I am having is finding new information on the case and understanding the terminology used in some of the articles. Reading the articles is very helpful, however most of the information reported in the articles is all the same. I’m trying to avoid articles and resources that have strong opinions on the case either opposing or supporting so I can formulate my own opinion, but I am having a hard time finding any.
To prepare for next week I am going to try to get a better understanding of the events that happened leading up to this case being brought to the Supreme Court. I am also going to thoroughly read all of that sources that I found so far, find more sources on the case, and work on my blog entries on the issues of the case and the decision of the court.
To prepare for next week I am going to try to get a better understanding of the events that happened leading up to this case being brought to the Supreme Court. I am also going to thoroughly read all of that sources that I found so far, find more sources on the case, and work on my blog entries on the issues of the case and the decision of the court.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Grutter vs. Bollinger: Reverse Discrimination
Barbara Grutter, a white student filed suit against the University of Michigan Law school after she was rejected in 1996. She claimed that she was discriminated against based on her race, which is in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. She claimed that she was rejected because the University used race as a major factor for admissions, giving minorities a greater chance to be admitted even if their credentials were the same as a white applicant. The defendant was Lee Bollinger who at the time was the President of the university.
The University’s policy was to make “special efforts” to increase the numbers of African American, Native American and Hispanic students who without some preference, “might not be represented in the student body is meaningful numbers.” (www.aamc.org/diversity/amicusbrief.pdf) The District court first ruled that the school’s ethnic-based admissions program violated the fourteenth amendment and title VI and that there was “mathematically irrefutable proof that race is indeed an enormously important factor” (www.aamc.org/diversity/amicusbrief.pdf) in the university’s quest to meet it’s goal of minority admissions.
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Michigan’s admissions policy is constitutional and that there was nothing wrong with implementing policies to ensure diversity.
http://www.npr.org/news/specials/michigan/
The University’s policy was to make “special efforts” to increase the numbers of African American, Native American and Hispanic students who without some preference, “might not be represented in the student body is meaningful numbers.” (www.aamc.org/diversity/amicusbrief.pdf) The District court first ruled that the school’s ethnic-based admissions program violated the fourteenth amendment and title VI and that there was “mathematically irrefutable proof that race is indeed an enormously important factor” (www.aamc.org/diversity/amicusbrief.pdf) in the university’s quest to meet it’s goal of minority admissions.
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Michigan’s admissions policy is constitutional and that there was nothing wrong with implementing policies to ensure diversity.
http://www.npr.org/news/specials/michigan/
Pacific Heights Blog
I understand that the couple that bought the house was enticed by the tenants promise of advanced cash payment. However they should have never rented to him without doing a credit check and having him fill out an application, now they are stuck with him living there and they don’t even know if that is his real name or not. The first red flag was that the tenant claimed to have spoken to the wife when in fact he never did but he somehow knew her name. The second red flag was that he refused to fill out an application or credit check, but he flashed a couple of thousand dollar bills so that seemed to be enough for Drake. Unfortunately they never saw any of that money and now they have a real creep on their hands.
They should have never let him in until they received the security deposit and first months rent, but I guess they never really let him in, he let himself in, changed the locks and cut off communication with his landlords until they shit the power and heat off on him, which gave the tenant the upper hand and allowed him to make the landlords look unreasonable and angry. Now he stole their cat and is breeding cockroaches and there is nothing that they can do about it. I don’t understand how it was legal for him to change the locks, but I suppose since they don’t even have a lease that states he can’t do that then he can do whatever he wants. They are faced with a long expensive legal battle to get him evicted and who knows what this guy is going to do in the mean time.
They should have never let him in until they received the security deposit and first months rent, but I guess they never really let him in, he let himself in, changed the locks and cut off communication with his landlords until they shit the power and heat off on him, which gave the tenant the upper hand and allowed him to make the landlords look unreasonable and angry. Now he stole their cat and is breeding cockroaches and there is nothing that they can do about it. I don’t understand how it was legal for him to change the locks, but I suppose since they don’t even have a lease that states he can’t do that then he can do whatever he wants. They are faced with a long expensive legal battle to get him evicted and who knows what this guy is going to do in the mean time.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Smash Me Doll
I would love to have a smash me Alex Rodriguez doll. Yes, I’m sure tons of professional athletes use or have used steroids. But to sit at a press conference and say that you didn’t know what you were injecting in to your body was steroids is completely insane. To also say that you didn’t know if it even enhanced your performance while you were taking them? Of course you knew what it was and of course it made you perform better or you wouldn’t have taken them for 3 YEARS. Stop playing innocent, you're not very good at it.
And yes, I am a red sox fan, but would be saying this even if I wasn't.
And yes, I am a red sox fan, but would be saying this even if I wasn't.
Greed is Good?
Well of course it’s beneficial to yourself to be greedy. But is it beneficial to the people around you? When I think of the word greedy, I immediately think of children. There’s always that one kid who hoards all the toys. Sure, he gets to play with all the cool stuff, but how do all the other kids around him feel? It’s safe to say that he’s not the most popular person in the class. Which leads to an entirely different question, is it more important to have all the toys, or to have friends? That can be easily related back to businesses. Sure you can make a lot of money, but if you don’t give back and are greedy, you might not have the important business relationships that are necessary to survive. In class today we were talking about returns to a store. Yes, a company has to take back defective or damaged merchandise, but they don’t have to take something back just because you don’t want it any more. They do this though to form good business relationships with their customers. If they were driven completely by greed though, they would not take unwanted merchandise back. Yes, they would keep that money on that sale, but chances are they lost any future business with that customer. “While a merchant might prefer to sell for cash with no return privilege, if the seller’s competitors are willing to allow prospective customers a trial period or the right of return, the seller must also do so to remain competitive.” (Essentials of Business Law, Liuzzo. Pg 216) Short term, they keep their money, but in the long term they end up losing business.
It also goes back to previous discussions that we had about ethics and morals. “Morals are concerned with behavior as judged by society.” (Essentials of Business Law, Liuzzo. Pg 19). It makes me wonder if there is a way to be wealthy and successful while being ethical and sticking to your personal moral code. Would I love to be rich? Of course, but would I rather have the respect of my peers and associates? Absolutely, and I think in the end, that will make me more successful.
It also goes back to previous discussions that we had about ethics and morals. “Morals are concerned with behavior as judged by society.” (Essentials of Business Law, Liuzzo. Pg 19). It makes me wonder if there is a way to be wealthy and successful while being ethical and sticking to your personal moral code. Would I love to be rich? Of course, but would I rather have the respect of my peers and associates? Absolutely, and I think in the end, that will make me more successful.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Response to MySpace blog entries:
“It was also stated that the mother had used the account to spread rumors and vilify the girl over the internet. I wonder, could this not be seen as a form of defamation?” ShrimpGirl Productions
What Lori Drew did seems like a textbook definition of defamation. She knowingly wrote hurtful and malicious things about Megan. Putting Megan’s medical history aside, these statements would be crushing to any teenager, especially coming from a love interest. Then when you factor in Megan’s already fragile medical state, they are particularly devastating. These statements were published on the Internet where anyone could see. Even if Megan’s profile were set to private, all of her friends on MySpace would be able to see what Lori Drew wrote.
“Next who is really at blame for the suicide of the young girl? Is it the parents or the individual that acted out the hoax? The young girl named Megan, having been diagnosed with a few emotional disorders, was a child that her parents should have paid closer attention to.” Raw Impact Designs
I disagree with this statement. All of the articles about the case show that the parents did pay a lot of attention to both Megan’s mental state, and he use of the internet. She was upfront and honest with her mother about the made up boy “Josh Evens”, her mother warned her to be cautious since she didn’t even know this person. Now think back to when you were a teenager, would you have even been that up front and honest with your parents? I know I didn’t tell my parents about every boy I had a crush on or every time I got my feelings hurt. There is no way that Megan’s parents could have spent every waking minute with their daughter and have monitored her every move.
“The story of the young girl who committed suicide because of a failed internet romance is sad but the thing that is sadder is the fact that the women who created the hoax feeling no remorse for what she had done.” JV Home Design
I believe that Lori Drew never intended for Megan to commit suicide, and I understand that this was meant to be harmless but got out of control. What I don’t understand is how she is not remorseful at all, especially since she is a mother herself. How does she not put herself in Megan’s parent’s shoes? She hasn’t even had the decency to tell the Meier’s that she is sorry for what she has done. She’s a very lucky that there weren’t any laws yet to prosecute her for a felony. Hopefully if this happens again, the person responsible will be held accountable.
“The mother was unaware that Megan had mental problems such as Depression and weight issues but the mother didn’t feel like she did anything wrong so she did not apologize to Megan’s family.” Vividmotive
Not knowing that Megan suffered from depression and self esteem issues is not a valid defense for what Lori Drew did. Even a perfectly healthy teenage girl would be heartbroken if a boy she liked did this to her, and any reasonable human being would know that. In a small town, I find it hard to believe that she didn’t have any prior knowledge of Megan’s emotional conditions, however there is no way to prove that.
What Lori Drew did seems like a textbook definition of defamation. She knowingly wrote hurtful and malicious things about Megan. Putting Megan’s medical history aside, these statements would be crushing to any teenager, especially coming from a love interest. Then when you factor in Megan’s already fragile medical state, they are particularly devastating. These statements were published on the Internet where anyone could see. Even if Megan’s profile were set to private, all of her friends on MySpace would be able to see what Lori Drew wrote.
“Next who is really at blame for the suicide of the young girl? Is it the parents or the individual that acted out the hoax? The young girl named Megan, having been diagnosed with a few emotional disorders, was a child that her parents should have paid closer attention to.” Raw Impact Designs
I disagree with this statement. All of the articles about the case show that the parents did pay a lot of attention to both Megan’s mental state, and he use of the internet. She was upfront and honest with her mother about the made up boy “Josh Evens”, her mother warned her to be cautious since she didn’t even know this person. Now think back to when you were a teenager, would you have even been that up front and honest with your parents? I know I didn’t tell my parents about every boy I had a crush on or every time I got my feelings hurt. There is no way that Megan’s parents could have spent every waking minute with their daughter and have monitored her every move.
“The story of the young girl who committed suicide because of a failed internet romance is sad but the thing that is sadder is the fact that the women who created the hoax feeling no remorse for what she had done.” JV Home Design
I believe that Lori Drew never intended for Megan to commit suicide, and I understand that this was meant to be harmless but got out of control. What I don’t understand is how she is not remorseful at all, especially since she is a mother herself. How does she not put herself in Megan’s parent’s shoes? She hasn’t even had the decency to tell the Meier’s that she is sorry for what she has done. She’s a very lucky that there weren’t any laws yet to prosecute her for a felony. Hopefully if this happens again, the person responsible will be held accountable.
“The mother was unaware that Megan had mental problems such as Depression and weight issues but the mother didn’t feel like she did anything wrong so she did not apologize to Megan’s family.” Vividmotive
Not knowing that Megan suffered from depression and self esteem issues is not a valid defense for what Lori Drew did. Even a perfectly healthy teenage girl would be heartbroken if a boy she liked did this to her, and any reasonable human being would know that. In a small town, I find it hard to believe that she didn’t have any prior knowledge of Megan’s emotional conditions, however there is no way to prove that.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
List of Crimes From Used Cars
Jaclyn Donatelli
Evelyn Lee
Brittany Hill
Sky Diaz
1. Assault
2. Vandalism
3. Assault of a police officer
4. Evading arrest
5. Leaving the scene of an accident
6. Unlicensed driving
7. Attempted murder
8. Reckless driving
9. Speeding
10. Child endangerment
11. Trespassing
12. Driving under the influence
13. Illegal gambling on a sports game
14. Unlicensed transactions
15. Agreements that interfere with public service
16. Transaction of over $500 with out a written agreement
17. Misrepresentation
18. Conspiracy
19. Illegal restraints of trade
20. Negligence
21. Perjury
22. False advertising
23. Destruction of Property
24. Alluding arrest
25. Nuisance
26. Fraud
Evelyn Lee
Brittany Hill
Sky Diaz
1. Assault
2. Vandalism
3. Assault of a police officer
4. Evading arrest
5. Leaving the scene of an accident
6. Unlicensed driving
7. Attempted murder
8. Reckless driving
9. Speeding
10. Child endangerment
11. Trespassing
12. Driving under the influence
13. Illegal gambling on a sports game
14. Unlicensed transactions
15. Agreements that interfere with public service
16. Transaction of over $500 with out a written agreement
17. Misrepresentation
18. Conspiracy
19. Illegal restraints of trade
20. Negligence
21. Perjury
22. False advertising
23. Destruction of Property
24. Alluding arrest
25. Nuisance
26. Fraud
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Grand Theft Auto Lawsuit
The first thing that jumped out at me when I was reading about this lawsuit was that the grandma who purchased this game, bought it for her 14 year old grandson. The game was initially rated M for mature which means it was meant for people aged 17 and up. Not 14 year olds. So she should have never bought the game for her grandson in the first place. After all of the criticism that the game got for these sexual scenes, the company changed the rating to Adult Only. So that means 18 and up right? Is there really that much of a difference between the two? Having said that, I don’t think that it was right of the game company to have these scenes hidden. It was deceptive to people buying the game that were under 18, and I’m sure that with the warning of excessive violence that was on the box there wasn’t a warning of sexual material. That is not ok. I know nothing about video games, so ‘hidden areas’ that need to be unlocked with ‘secret codes’ is pretty foreign, but I can’t imagine that it’s hard for a kid of any age to find the secret codes to unlock these hidden scenes on the internet somewhere.
Maybe the gaming company made a mistake by putting these scenes in their video game. But the purchaser also made a mistake by buying an age inappropriate game for her young grandson. I’m sure that this happens all the time, but when an adult willingly buys a game that is clearly rated for kids 17 and up and gives it to someone under 17, is that the gaming companies fault? I agree that the company made a mistake by releasing this version of the video game to the public without the correct label and warning, and going forward I would hope that it wouldn’t happen again. I don’t think that it justifies a lawsuit. This 14 year old shouldn’t be playing a game rated M in the first place.
Maybe the gaming company made a mistake by putting these scenes in their video game. But the purchaser also made a mistake by buying an age inappropriate game for her young grandson. I’m sure that this happens all the time, but when an adult willingly buys a game that is clearly rated for kids 17 and up and gives it to someone under 17, is that the gaming companies fault? I agree that the company made a mistake by releasing this version of the video game to the public without the correct label and warning, and going forward I would hope that it wouldn’t happen again. I don’t think that it justifies a lawsuit. This 14 year old shouldn’t be playing a game rated M in the first place.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Blog Comments
I commented on The Zero Star's blog:
It's refreshing to hear positive comments about lawyers. I'm sure a very small percentage of law students go through school with career goals of screwing people over and being dishonest. Maybe that’s just me being an optimistic person, but I feel that the majority of lawyers are there to help you, and if they help you they end up helping themselves as well.
It's refreshing to hear positive comments about lawyers. I'm sure a very small percentage of law students go through school with career goals of screwing people over and being dishonest. Maybe that’s just me being an optimistic person, but I feel that the majority of lawyers are there to help you, and if they help you they end up helping themselves as well.
MySpace Hoax
When I was growing up we didn’t have myspace or facebook, and for most of my childhood the internet wasn’t widely available and certainly wasn’t a part of everyday life for a child. Now kids spend way too much time on computers and tend to live in a fictional world where your popularity is based on how many facebook friends you have, and the ‘cool kids’ don’t just ignore you at lunch, they post terrible things on the internet for everyone to see. What happened to Megan Meier is an example of how horrific this bullying can be. The worst part about this case is that it wasn’t another teenage girl making Megan’s life miserable, it was an adult woman with children of her own. Why Lori decided to create this fictional boy who pretended to have a crush on Megan and then break her heart and spread terrible rumors about her is unthinkable. “Both ethics and morals are concerned with standards of right and wrong.” (Essentials of Business Law, Liuzzo, pg. 19) While Lori Drew did not break one specific law, she certainly doesn’t have a very strong moral code. Everything about what she, and everyone involved did was wrong and it resulted in an already depressed little girl taking her own life.
To read that she was found guilty of something is a relief, but to find that she wasn’t found guilty of everything she was charged with is somewhat of a disappointment. While there are no laws in place that allowed Lori Drew to be charged with Megan’s suicide, hopefully something good will come from this tragedy and new laws will be put in place. “A precedent is a court decision on which later courts rely in similar cases. In some instances, a court may be influenced by precedent, in other cases it may not.” Essentials of Business Law, Liuzzo, pg. 5) This case has certainly raised awareness of internet bullying crimes, but hopefully the outcome will not be a precedent for other cases of this nature. People need to be held responsible for their actions, and if Lori Drew were found guilty of all of the charges brought against her anyone who may have thought about doing something like this, a child or an adult, would have second thoughts knowing that they would get in serious trouble.
To read that she was found guilty of something is a relief, but to find that she wasn’t found guilty of everything she was charged with is somewhat of a disappointment. While there are no laws in place that allowed Lori Drew to be charged with Megan’s suicide, hopefully something good will come from this tragedy and new laws will be put in place. “A precedent is a court decision on which later courts rely in similar cases. In some instances, a court may be influenced by precedent, in other cases it may not.” Essentials of Business Law, Liuzzo, pg. 5) This case has certainly raised awareness of internet bullying crimes, but hopefully the outcome will not be a precedent for other cases of this nature. People need to be held responsible for their actions, and if Lori Drew were found guilty of all of the charges brought against her anyone who may have thought about doing something like this, a child or an adult, would have second thoughts knowing that they would get in serious trouble.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Laywers...
Lawyers are an expensive and necessary solution to getting out of trouble. I understand that there are many crooked lawyers, and like we discussed in class today there are lawyers that use their connections to in turn make money off people. But in the long run people are better off having a crooked lawyer represent them then not having a lawyer at all. Personally I haven’t had much experience with lawyers (besides them being my friends). But I know that if I get in trouble I need to call one, and I hope the one that I call will be a good one. In the end it’s all about connections. Chances are you are going to call a lawyer that you know, have used or know someone who has used them and gotten favorable results. If you have a good friend of family member who hired a lawyer that lost a case for them, I’m sure you wouldn’t recommend them to anyone else or use them yourself.
One thing that I will never understand is how a lawyer can defend someone that they know is guilty, and on top of that, actually be happy that this guilty person doesn’t get convicted and punished for the crime that they committed. I have to believe that these lawyers are de-sensitized to the pain and suffering that their client may have inflicted upon others and are instead focused on their paychecks and the satisfaction of winning. I believe that you have to be able to trust your lawyer and hope that they are doing what’s best for you, and not what’s best for themselves or their firm which I can only imagine is a difficult thing to decipher. With all of the advertisements and commercials of lawyers promising you everything, how can you really know what to believe?
One thing that I will never understand is how a lawyer can defend someone that they know is guilty, and on top of that, actually be happy that this guilty person doesn’t get convicted and punished for the crime that they committed. I have to believe that these lawyers are de-sensitized to the pain and suffering that their client may have inflicted upon others and are instead focused on their paychecks and the satisfaction of winning. I believe that you have to be able to trust your lawyer and hope that they are doing what’s best for you, and not what’s best for themselves or their firm which I can only imagine is a difficult thing to decipher. With all of the advertisements and commercials of lawyers promising you everything, how can you really know what to believe?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)