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.
Showing posts with label EOC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EOC. Show all posts
Saturday, March 21, 2009
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
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
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)