DISSENT -- Part VII: Tinker vs. Des Moines School District (1969)

7. Dissent – if the case wasn’t decided 9-0, what did the justices who ruled against the majority think about their case?

Justice Black and Justice Harlan dissented.

According to bc.edu, Justice Black had said in an interview that the Tinkers and the one childhood friend involved in wearing the black arm bands were the only ones who refused to take them off when asked out of the 18,000 students who wore them. He felt that school officials had the right to think ahead of the problems that would occur if these students wore the black arm bands and that they were the authorities that had a say in what goes. He also mentioned that just because the black arm bands didn’t shout, used profane language, or were violent in any manner, does not mean that other students will not make fun of them and problems would occur. Justice Harlan agreed with Justice Black.

Works Cited:
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/tinker.html
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_21/

OPINION -- Part VI: Tinker vs. Des Moines School District (1969)

6. Your own argument. Did you agree or disagree with the ruling. Provide some authority for your argument.

In the case of Tinker vs. Des Moines School District, I believe that the Judges made the right decision to let these children wear the black arm bands. They did not cause any harm. It was also said that there were a few students that made rude remarks toward them outside of classrooms, but these students who wore the black arm bands did not act upon it. They were protesting silently and weren’t disturbing the peace. The Tinkers had every right to express their opinion and how they felt about the Vietnam War. If the Tinkers and others were causing a huge ruckus about the Vietnam War and were doing it on school property, then the school authorities had the right to set rules and regulations about suspending anyone who partook in the event. This case was clearly more than just setting rules and regulations about dress code and inappropriate things people say on school grounds, it was about freedom of speech and whether or not these brave students were protected under it. Girls who wear skirts that show their butt cheeks should be punished for wearing degrading material on school grounds because it could be offensive to others and it would cause a disruption. Wearing black arm bands and just carrying along with school like any normal day doesn’t do anything.

RULE OF LAW -- Part V: Tinker vs. Des Moines School District (1969)

5. Rule of law -- a concise summary of the main precedent established.

To summarize the entire case, three students in the Des Moines School district decided to wear black arm bands in protest against the Vietnam War. Upon hearing this news, the teachers and principals of the Des Moines School district made an assumption that this was clearly an act of rebellion and that students were going to create problems by wearing these. In hearing so, the school district decided that students were to get suspended if they showed up wearing these black armbands.

Mary Beth Tinker, John Tinker, and one of their childhood friends decided to wear the black armbands anyways. They got suspended and were not allowed to come back on school property unless they showed up without these arm bands. Their father sued and took this to the Supreme Court. The main questions asked were, “does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech protections” (oyez.org)? In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court decided that the students did have a right to wear the black arm bands since they weren’t disruptive or caused harm to others while in school.

Works Cited:
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/tinker.html
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_21/

REASONING OF THE COURT -- Part IV: Tinker vs. Des Moines School District (1969)

4. Reasoning of the court -- analysis of the thinking process and logic used by previous judges.

Justice Abe Fortas was the Judge to write for the majority. The two judges who dissented were Justice Black and Justice Harlan. The other 7 judges who agreed that the wearing of the armbands was protected under the first amendment had said that there was no exact proof that the people who chose to wear the armbands disrupted class. The teachers had the right to make rules for the school that would lead to arguments and disruptive behavior, but in this case, the students did a silent protest and were not causing harm to anybody. “Outside the classrooms, a few students made hostile remarks to the children wearing armbands, but there were no threats or acts of violence on school premises” (bc.edu).

Works Cited:
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/tinker.html
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_21/

DECISION OF THE COURT -- PART III: Tinker vs. Des Moines School District (1969)

3. Decision of the court – how was the case decided, including an analysis of any concurring or dissenting opinions in previous case precedent.

“In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the students had the right to wear armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War” (infoplease.com). “The District Court concluded that the action of the school authorities was reasonable because it was based upon their fear of a disturbance from the wearing of the armbands. But, in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression” (law.umkc.edu). The schools did have a right to be scared of problems that might have occurred, but according to law.umkc.edu, it cannot overcome the rights of freedom of speech. “In order for the State in the person of school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint” (law.umkc.edu). Since there was no proof of disturbance toward the school (it was a silent protest, after all), the prohibition cannot be sustained. “A prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments” (bc.edu).

The District Court recognized that wearing of armbands for the purpose of expression views in a symbolic manner was within the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Justice Abe Fortas wrote for the majority. He emphasized that the students have First Amendment rights, and while schools have the right to establish rules relating to clothing, the length of skirts, hairstyles, disruptive behavior… the Tinker vs. Des Moines case did not involve any of those issues. According to infoplease.com, Justice Abe Fortas said that this case does not concern speech or action that intrudes upon the work of the schools or the rights of other students. “Justice Hugo Black dissented. He pointed out that the case involved a small number of students who refused to obey the instructions of school officials, and argued that allowing this behavior would have a negative effect on schools and on the country as a whole” (infoplease.com).

Works Cited:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/firstamendment/tinker.html
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/tinker.html
http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar39.html
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1

First Monday In October

Why is this film relevant? Is there still an issue with appointing a woman to the high court? What is your position on pornography? Are there issues in the film on adult content still relevant today with presence of the internet?

Today in class we watched a movie called “First Monday In October”. There were two different sides toward the Justices in the court. One side, Madam Justice, was more conservative than the other side, Justice Snow, where he was more liberal. Justice Snow did not want to see the film “The Naked Nymphomaniac” because he felt that Malone (the director of the film) had the right to show the film to whomever because it’s free speech. Madam Justice felt that Justice Snow should be excused from the case because he did not partake in the watching the film.

First of all, they do both agree that this film is “filth”. The argument here is whether or not Justice Snow should be allowed to express his opinion and be a part of the case because he did not see the film to see how it really is. I think that if someone were to make a judgment or a conclusion about anything, they should be there first hand to witness what really is going on. I believe that Justice Snow should excuse himself from the case because he’s not willing to comply in watching the film and with that, he should not pass judgment that Malone can do whatever he wants. Madam Justice brought up good points in the movie while she was interviewing “Malone” about how the law is there to protect minds of others. We do have the right to protect ourselves from seeing filth on television. Nowadays, they have devices and programs where you can block things that you do not want you or your children to see. I believe movie theaters have guidelines and regulations to what they have to include in the film and must have an appropriate rating. These are taken very seriously now. There are ways around is such as purchasing the “unrated” version of the film that was not shown in theater, but that would be done in the privacy of your own home.

According to the teacher, our only woman in the Supreme Court is sick and that they have to appoint a new Justice because she cannot perform her duties. President Obama is only accepting female applicants to become the new Justice. In my opinion, even as a woman, it’s not fair. They should appoint someone who is well qualified and shouldn’t be judged because of what gender they are. A man could do the same job as a woman and vice versa.

Pornography nowadays is pretty common. If you don’t have the proper spywares or pop-up blockers installed on your computer, there is a 100% chance that you are going to see a butt-hole with a penis inside of it just popped up in front of your face. If you don’t want to see the porn, then do something about it so that it doesn’t affect your computer. Porn doesn’t bother me when sold in public either. I used to work at Fry’s Electronics and I was actually in charge of the porn section of the videos. We have the area concealed so that if you walk by it, you cannot see the videos. Also, we have ropes and signs that say you must be 18 to enter. Sure people under 18 enter the area but it’s my job to tell them to leave. As long as it’s hidden and there is a clear warning that the area is for porn only, then it is okay. Also, there are so many types of genres of porn, it’s unbelievable. There porn that is for fetishes which I can’t stand just even hearing about them, but it’s my choice to not see or watch it.

Illicit

I was not able to make it class on Saturday, March 14th and was not able to see the film watched in class.

By reading other student’s posts, I have read that they are talking about the word and meaning behind the word “illicit” and if I have committed any acts of illicit behavior.

First, according to dictionary.com, illicit means, “not legally permitted or authorized; unlicensed; unlawful” (dictionary.com). Most of the student’s posts were pertaining to buying “knock-off” products and how buying these items were illicit behavior. I have to admit that I have bought “fake” items, especially when I travel to the Philippines. That place is fake stuff galore! Also, since the currency of the peso to a dollar is quite low in the Philippines (50 Pesos = $1.00 US Money, you can buy a meal at McDonald’s for under a dollar!), you can only imagine what kind of knick knacks you can buy. I can spend a ridiculous amount of money every time I visit and not feel guilty about spending too much. I have bought some knock-off purses, wallets, DVD’s, jewelry… and anything else you can think of in the Philippines for a very cheap price. I never realized how much it takes effect on our economy by doing so. A few years ago, I was able to buy these things and not worry about getting checked in customs at the Airport. Usually they will just let you go, but nowadays, they will check everything and take away anything fake that you have bought. It’s gotten pretty strict. It’s pretty impossible to sneak in fake items into America nowadays.

I can understand why it would cause such a big problem by buying things that are “knock-offs”. The real manufacturer that makes these items is losing money and is getting bad reputations for having lots and lots of their items being sold for a cheap price. People are probably saying, “why spend thousands of dollars when I can get a perfectly good one on the street for cheap?!” People don’t necessarily care about the quality of the product if they just want it for the fad (but there are some people who will refuse to buy a knock-off or a non-brand product). Yes, purchasing fake things is illicit, but how can you really stop it from happening. There are so many programs and software available online to download material to put onto your computer without having to pay thousands and thousands of dollars for the actual thing. There are so many vendors who sell fake name brand products (just go to Santi-Alley in L.A.!) that are still in business. There really is no way to stop it unless law enforcements can find a better way of stopping the distributers from making these fake things.

Works Cited:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/illicit

ISSUE OF THE CASE -- Part II: Tinker vs. Des Moines School Distric (1969)

2. Issue of the case -- what specific concepts and terms were involved – in other words, why is the case before the Court.

The basic issue of the case asks the question, “does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech protections?” (oyez.org). “The school had established a policy permitting students to wear several political symbols, but had excluded the wearing of armbands protesting the Vietnam War” (infoplease.com). Tinker vs. Des Moines tackled many issues concerning the First Amendment’s freedom of speech law. The difficult part of this case is that students were allowed to express their emotions toward something they strongly felt about, just as long as they weren’t disrupting class. With that being said, the students, including the Tinkers were “quiet and passive. They were not disruptive and did not impinge upon the rights of others” (bc.edu). Of course, there were rules to how a student was allowed to dress for school, i.e. no short skirts, no explicit language on t-shirts…, but since the students really didn’t harm anybody, they should have not been punished in wearing the black armbands. After all, it was a quiet protest.

“The problem posed by the present case does not relate to regulation of the length of skirts or the type of clothing, to hair style, or deportment. It does not concern aggressive, disruptive action or even group demonstrations. Our problem involves direct, primary First Amendment rights akin to "pure speech." (law.umkc.edu). The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (usconstitution.net). Since the children who wore the armbands to school was not disruptive and are only clearly expression their rights to freedom of speech, they should have not been punished by the school. Only 18,000 students in the school district wore the black armbands and only five students were suspended for wearing them. There was no indication that the work of the schools or any class was disrupted in any way. No threats were involved nor were acts of violence on school premises present. “The District Court concluded that the action of the school authorities was reasonable because it was based upon their fear of a disturbance from the wearing of the armbands. But, in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression. Any departure from absolute regimentation may cause trouble. Any variation from the majority's opinion may inspire fear. Any word spoken, in class, in the lunchroom, or on the campus, that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance. But our Constitution says we must take this risk, and our history says that it is this sort of hazardous freedom -- this kind of openness -- that is the basis of our national strength and of the independence and vigor of Americans who grow up and live in this relatively permissive, often disputatious, society” (law.umkc.edu).

Works Cited:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/firstamendment/tinker.html
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/tinker.html
http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar39.html
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1

Legal Brief Project Progress

As I read the teacher’s e-mail before class, he had said to change the color of the quotes we were using for our legal brief project. I updated my first blog entry on the facts of the case and changed the font color of the quotes that I’ve used. Other than that, no changes have been made.

So far in this project, I have found two sources. The first source is http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/tinker.html which is 15 pages long. It actually has the facts, issues, decision and reasoning of the court, rule of the law, and the dissent. Although it has everything I basically need, I’m required to find more sources so it my project wouldn’t be seen as plagiarism. Another source I have found is http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar39.html which is a brief summary about the case. I have not yet begun to work on my legal brief other than further readings and my first EOC blog on the Supreme Court Case that was posted last week.

My plans for this week is to research more about the issues and the decisions of the court for the Tinker vs. Des Moines Supreme Court Case. Also, I will look for more educational references online and maybe in the library about this case (but I will most likely continue to look at articles and educational sources online). Everything seems to be on track though.

Pacific Heights

Earlier in class we watched a movie called Pacific Heights. The movie was basically about a couple, who is not married, who took a challenge and bought a home for the first time. To make ends meet, they needed to rent out the 1 bedroom and studio apartments below them. The first tenants to move in were a Japanese couple who had an excellent credit check. An African-American man wanted to move into the studio apartment but his credit check was misplaced when the Japanese couple moved in. Another man, Mr. Hayes, wanted to move into the studio as well.

The owner of the home, Mr. Goodman ran into Mr. Hayes in the beginning in front of his home. Mr. Hayes automatically said that he had already spoken to Mr. Goodman’s girlfriend and that she had a meeting with her to check out the apartment. With no questions asked, Mr. Goodman willingly let Mr. Hayes into the apartment to check it out. They start to discuss the apartment conditions and some of Mr. Hayes’s background. Mr. Hayes then tells Mr. Goodman that he wants the apartment, but since Mr. Goodman requires a credit check on all tenants, he waves the piece of paper to Mr. Hayes. Mr. Hayes then flashes his wallet full of one hundred dollar bills to Mr. Goodman claiming that he can pay 6 months worth of rent. Mr. Goodman is intrigued and lets go of the credit check. He then just asks for references.

Some red flags that Mr. Goodman should have considered before allowing Mr. Hayes to move in was that his own girlfriend had said she never spoke to a “Mr. Hayes”. Of course, he did not believe her. Second, the fact that Mr. Hayes was not able to supply a credit background check should have had Mr. Goodman thinking twice about the guy. Third, while Mr. Goodman was calling for references, some people that were given to him by Mr. Hayes didn’t even know he existed and the woman who had gave him an excellent reference asked for the address and where Mr. Hayes was currently staying in. To me that’s not very professional-like. Fourth, the money never got transferred to Mr. Goodman’s account for the first 6 months of rent like Mr. Hayes had promised, nor did he provide a security deposit. There were so much more hints and clues to why Mr. Goodman should not have let Mr. Hayes stay at his home. I actually got pretty interested in this movie and would like to see what happens in the end. I bet Mr. Hayes will try and seduce Patti then kill her or something.

FACTS OF THE CASE -- Part I: Tinker vs. Des Moines School District (1969)

1. Facts of the case -- a concise statement of the facts that brought the case before the Court.

“In December 1965, a group of adults and students in Des Moines held a meeting at the Eckhardt home. The group determined to publicize their objections to the hostilities in Vietnam and their support for a truce by wearing black armbands during the holiday season and by fasting on December 16 and New Year's Eve. Petitioners and their parents had previously engaged in similar activities, and they decided to participate in the program” (bc.edu). The principals of the Des Moines school district became aware of the petitioner’s plans on wearing armbands to school and on December 14, 1965, the school adopted a policy that any students wearing an armband to school would be asked to remove it and will be suspended if refused. On December 16th, two high school students, John F. Tinker (15 years old) and Christopher Eckhardt (16 years old), and one junior high student, John’s sister, Mary Beth Tinker (13 years old) wore black armbands to school. “They were all sent home and suspended from school until they would come back without their armbands. They did not return to school until after the planned period for wearing armbands had expired – that is, until after New Year’s Day” (bc.edu). The fathers of the children sued, but the District Court ruled that the school had not violated anything on the Constitution. “The Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court, and the Tinkers appealed to the Supreme Court” (infoplease.com).

Works Cited:
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/tinker.html
http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar39.html

"Greed is Good"

“Greed is good.” Now what can we think of when we hear that quote? I don’t necessarily agree with that saying 100%, but depending on a certain type of situation, that quote can pertain to something morally good and not so wrong. That quote pretty much takes us back to chapter 2 in the book when we learned about ethics and morals. “Ethics takes a more philosophical approach, examining what is good or bad. Morals are concerned with behavior as judged by society” (Essentials of Business Law, Liuzzo; Pg. 19). With those definitions in mind, would a quote such as “greed is good” fall under the category of an ethical dilemma? We were taught that being greedy in this world is not nice and that we will never get anywhere in life being hated on. That’s not always so correct once you live in the real world. When you think about it, so many people in this world have made it through life became rich by being greedy. Of course morally, it’s not good to be greedy, but you do what you have to do to reach your goals. For example, there are good and bad types of being greedy. If you were to start a foundation, say a foundation for helping kids fight cancer, you would want to be greedy and find ways to manipulate people into giving you money for raising money to these kids. Would that be so bad? You’re doing whatever you can to help them out. It’s for the cause of helping others. If you were to start a company for your own benefit and would trample over anybody just to get what you want, then that would be considered greedy in the form we all know the word to be.

“Despite a few glaring lapses, many companies today understand the need to maintain ethical standards in their dealings with customers, suppliers, and employees. To do this, some firms or industries establish a code of ethics…” (Essentials of Business Law, Liuzzo; Pg 21). Having a code of ethics in the business would definitely set some standards in order for people to be not so greedy. “Greed is good” is such an iffy quote and a tough subject to put my finger on. One side of me agrees and another disagrees. Have you ever seen a movie called “Envy” starring Ben Stiller and Jack Black? It’s a story about two friends who shared everything and one day Jack Black discovers a miracle spray that got rid of any kind of animal feces and made it disappear into thin air. Of course, he became rich, bought a big house, and bought everything his money could buy, while his best friend was left all by himself. The thing is, Ben Stiller never asked to be a part of his company and just watched his best friend do his thing. He then began to get jealous of his friend’s success. Throughout the movie, you realize that none of this is Jack’s fault because he had been nice to Ben and offered him everything he ever needed and that Ben had so much pride and acted like his success was nothing to him. Jack wasn’t really greedy, he was actually giving, but the thought of Ben being jealous, he was green with envy. It really comes down to what situation and how you’re looking at the quote to truly understand its meaning. It’s up to you to decide whether greed is really good, or if greed is bad.

Smash-Me Doll

If I could create a smash-me doll, I would make a doll of my roommate, Chris. He basically instigated a war between two people that used to live in our house with us and myself. He would always be telling me about the things they would say when I was gone, and being pregnant with raging hormones does not help the situation. A fight broke out between me and the girl that used to live with us (at the time her and her boyfriend still lived with us) and it turned into a pretty bad fist fight. I won, of course. That day of the fight, they were in the process of moving back to her dad’s house and they still haven’t given the key to our house back and that day was supposed to be the last day to take their stuff out of our house. Instead, they refused to give the key and locked their room door with a bunch of their junk still left over and drove to her dad’s. I was furious so the next morning I picked the lock and threw their junk outside, everything that they had left.

(This is where Chris comes in) Chris even helps me out with taking their crap outside of the house, especially the bed since I couldn’t move that on my own. Since Chris had been sleeping on the couch and had no room, the room the couple used to own would be his room. He got right to it and started cleaning and moving his stuff into his new room. Just for a little background, I trusted Chris as if he were my brother. We clicked pretty much when we first met and we even talked him out of moving to Florida because he would only get in trouble there. But anyways, I was already late for work since I had been moving the couple’s belongings outside. It was garbage day that day. I had told the couple that if they didn’t want their stuff to be taken away by the garbage man then I suggest they take it now. I had asked Chris to do me one thing, and it is to watch my room and make sure they are not allowed in the house. I knew that the couple was going to be pissed and do something with my stuff since all their crap is out of the house. But they didn’t stick to the agreement, they were supposed to leave the house key and have all their belongings out of the house by a certain date and they failed to do so. Chris said, “Yeah I understand, don’t worry about it, I wouldn’t want my stuff to get trashed too.” So then I left for work. I get a call from my other roommate (Chris’s cousin) saying that the couple had already left and took their stuff with them. I asked her if they came into the house and she said the girl came in. Right there and then I asked her to check my room. I was right, it was completely trashed.

I drove home immediately and began yelling at Chris. He first said, “She needed to get some movies inside the house” then I had asked him if he watched her, he said no. I became even angrier and started to lose my cool. He then started yelling back, getting in my face, and threw things around saying, “You’re a grown woman and don’t expect her to not do anything to your stuff when you threw theirs outside! It’s not my responsibility!” So… there you have it. I asked him to do one thing, and one thing only. WATCH MY THINGS. He said he would and that he wouldn’t want things like that to happen to him. He said he wasn’t going to let them into the house. I trusted him, and now all that happened. Ever since then, I took back my laptop, iPod, and television that he was using in his room and we haven’t spoken to each other ever since then. He apologized to my boyfriend and said that he’s embarrassed to talk to me. I don’t give a flying fuck. He doesn’t have the balls to come to me and apologize, and every time I’m in the same room as him he would run back upstairs to his room. He’s a coward and I would love to see his face get smashed, but I guess a doll would do the trick. For a 21 year old guy with long hair and has no qualifications to get a job what-so-ever, good luck trying to survive in this world. He already can’t pay for rent!

I would so love a doll that looks like him so I can beat the shit out of it. Sorry for the French, but repeating this story makes me so angry. I hate being pregnant sometimes.

Myspace Hoax (Blog Review)

“To me this case seems to be a clear case of slander. Slander being defined as “the spreading of damaging words or ideas about a person, directly or indirectly, in all other forms not considered libel.” (Essentials of Business Law, Luizzo, pg 45) The mother that created the MySpace account had the intent to slander the already emotionally fragile girl. (Anchor Drive Productions)”

I had written myself that this was an act of slander. The mother did create a Myspace account with the intent of emotionally hurting the young girl. The definition of slander, which Anchor Drive Productions described is exactly what the mother did.

“Because she used a pseudo names she violated the agreements on MySpace. I felt that she was responsible for pushing this young girl over the edge. Whether she knew it or not this girl suffered from severe depression. With further research could this woman also be charged with even more including negligence? (design guru 84)”

Lori Drew definitely violated the terms and agreements of Myspace. It says that you cannot make any false claims about your identity. I’m sure people lie a little bit about their selves here and there on Myspace, but the fact that she intended to do this to a girl (not just any girl, someone who is depressed) for the purpose of hurting them emotionally is just straight wrong! She did in fact push Megan to commit suicide; regardless if that was her intention in doing so. The only thing I disagree with design guru 84 is that I don’t think it would be considered negligence because Megan was nothing to her, not a relative nor someone Lori Drew was responsible of.

“I believe that it comes down to parenting. If Megan had a disorder and her parents knew that she was mentally unstable, why did they allow her to get involved with someone in the first place? With any romantic relationship, emotions-both physically and mentally, are always involved. And having a young girl such as Megan, with some type of disorder, should have never been given permission at all to have a relationship. Let alone, a Myspace account. If Megan’s parents knew that Megan was bothered and upset, why didn’t they stop online privileges or discontinue her Myspace subscription? What the hell were Mr. and Mrs. Meier thinking? (Flip Beats Productions)”

I could agree and disagree to what Flip Beats Productions said. Yes, it is true that Megan’s parents should have paid more attention to their daughter when they clearly knew that she was bothered and upset, but you have to look at it from Megan’s point of view and the parents as well. It does not discuss whatsoever about the parenting given to Megan by her parents in any of the articles. Everyone faces their teen years, whether they were good or bad experiences. Remember how we would always disobey our parents and still use the internet if we weren’t allowed to? Or making phone calls to friends when it’s past our bedtime… little things like these are a big deal when it comes to early adult hood. Megan could’ve been told to let her Myspace go and not take things too seriously, but as a teenager with hormones rushing through her brain will do the exact opposite of that. I wouldn’t say that the parents are all too blame, but I agree that they have a part in her death. I’m sure if Megan’s parents forbid her to use Myspace, she would have still found a way to access it one way or another.

“Should parents with kids that are still teens make some type of effort to monitor their child’s online time? Maybe through the use of third party software or opening better communication, parents will be able to understand their kid’s life from both an emotional and physical aspect. (Raw Impact Designs)”

The opening statement to Raw Impact Design’s post was very strong. Raw Impact Designs raised some questions to think about the entire situation. One concern I do have is privacy. When we were teenagers, all we wanted was to be left alone and not have our parents bother us. Am I right? Raw Impact Designs states that the parent’s should have a third party software to monitor their child’s internet usage. I think that would cause even more problems, especially if Megan found out. I remember once in middle school, I had been talking on the phone with my friend for hours about boys, school… and other useless information we had to tell each other in middle school and I had found out that my father had recorded the entire conversation through the answering machine. He didn’t listen to it, but the fact that I knew he invaded my privacy, at that age and state of mind, made me go crazy! Software to spy on children isn’t the best thing to do. I do agree though that the parents should have paid more attention to Megan and look for signs of depression, which she clearly had.

"Used Cars"

I was not here for week four, but upon reading other students' blogs, it says that they had watched a movie called "Used Cars" and they were instructed in listing crimes and torts that were comitted in the movie. The list is:

1. Bribery
2. False Advertising
3. Sexual Harassment
4. Perjury5. Destruction of Property
6. Lying Under Oath
7. Underage Drivers
8. 250 Counts of Driving w/o License
9. Speeding
10. Hit & Run
11. Trespassing
12. Assault w/ a Deadly Weapon
13. No Seatbelts
14. Reckless Driving
15. Child Endangerment
16. Misrepresentation
17. Libel
18. Slander
19. Defamation
20. Conversion

Grandma Sues "Grand Theft Auto"

Upon reading the article on msnbc.msn.com about the grandmother suing the maker of Grand Theft Auto, I feel as if it wasn’t the maker’s fault, it was the grandmothers. The rating clearly says rated “M” which is for audiences ages 17 and up and she had bought it for her grandson who is 14 years old. I do not understand why the maker had to change the rating from “M” to “AO”. Sure video games get hacked all the time and they show sexual explicit nature, but think about it… the entire concept of the game Grand Theft Auto is to steal cars, kill people, shoot cops, find hookers… and who knows what else! If this grandmother willingly bought the game for her son thinking that it’s just about cars, then she’s completely in denial. Just like movie ratings, rated “R” is for audiences who are 17 years and older. Rated R movies show soft-core pornography sometimes and it includes a lot of violence. Now, would the grandmother take her little grandson to watch a movie like that? I wouldn’t think so. It was her own mistake and the company should not have been punished for it.

One example I have for this is another game called The Sims. I have been playing that game for years, and many enjoy it including little children. I don’t exactly know what the rating is for the game, but it too has some violent intentions. For example, you can purposely kill a character in the game by locking a person up in a home while cooking and have them burn to death. Also, when you tell the Sims to make babies, the display this by crawling into bed with the sheet covers on and start humping like animals! Although you cannot see what they are doing, a person knows exactly what is going on under there. People don’t seem to mind though because it is entertaining and pretty fun to play. Video games such as these have ratings on them for a reason. I think this grandmother is an idiot and was just finding a way to make some cash on the side and putting the blame on someone else for buying the game for her fourteen year old grandson.

Works Cited:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8728577/

EOC, Week 1 -- Blog Comment

Flip Beats Productions;
I do agree with you that lawyers can be good or bad, depending on which side you are on. For example, if you were a bad guy, of course you would want to be seen as innocent. The lawyer working for her/him will try and do their best to defend them while you are the “good guy” on the other end. If the other person won, you would definitely be screwed. I also agree with you on the part where you had mentioned that if it dealt with children, it should always be on the best interest of them and the parents should not be a major factor in the case. Lawyers can be sneaky and conniving, but what can you do? They are in fact doing their job, and to get the best lawyer there is, you’re looking at coughing up tons of money (depending on what you did exactly). Overall, I agree with your opinions on lawyers and you have posted a great blog :)

MySpace Hoax

Whether the neighbor, Lori Drew, intended for Megan to commit suicide or not, she is still sick and wrong for creating a fictional character on MySpace to keep in contact with Megan. It’s just cruel for any person, especially a 49 year old mother with a daughter of her own, to play such an immature hoax on someone who is only thirteen! I wonder how the mother would have felt if someone was doing the same exact thing on her daughter. I know life as a teenager is hard, especially teenage girls. There’s so much change as it is in the world, especially for Megan who has attention deficit disorder and who is mildly depressed. I don’t know Megan, but nobody deserves to be treated the way she did. People are all different. Some people might not even care if people wrote mean posts about them on MySpace; others take it personally, like Megan. It’s not fair. It’s quite a relief that Drew will be facing sentences from probation to a year in prison and a fine of $100,000 for every misdemeanor account.

In my opinion, what Drew did is known as a tort, “A private wrong that injures another person’s physical well-being, property, or reputation” (Essentials of Business Law, Liuzzo, Pg. 31). She definitely did do a private wrong and injured Megan’s physical and emotional well-being. Also, I believe that what Drew did is a slander, “Slander is the term that describes almost all defamation that cannot be classified as libel. Slander includes spoken words, gestures, actions, and even omissions. Most cases of slander involve thoughtless statements that reflect on another person’s good name and reputation” (Essentials of Business Law, Luizzo, Pg. 47). Drew, her daughter, and her assistant spread damaging words and ideas that ruined Megan’s reputation; which is the definition of slander. I really do hope that Drew does get convicted of the felony charges and does face up to 20 years of prison.

What do you think of lawyers?

Today in class, the teacher somewhat discussed how lawyers are in general and how they are portrayed in the society. What I found interesting about lawyers was the whole “campaign, re-election” deals that they make with judges. What happens is lawyers will re-elect the judge and give them large amounts of money for the judge’s elections for the trade of favors. An interesting joke that is posted on myeclassonline.com that I found to be interesting about lawyers is, “What's the difference between a good lawyer and a great lawyer? -- A good lawyer knows the law. A great lawyer knows the judge”. Lawyers are portrayed as sneaks, cheats, and liars when it comes to the law. In my opinion, those favors that they receive from judges can be good. For example, one day you’re driving on the freeway and all of the sudden a cop clocks you going 80mph. The speed limit is 65. The cop then writes you a ticket and that’s something you really don’t want on you record. You drive home one day pissed off about that ticket and you see a little piece of heaven, a billboard that says, “Got a ticket? Call us to get rid of it!”. You then call the number and for a little price, you’re ticket will be taken care of and it is then reduced to a parking citation. The teacher discussed that this is a favor owed by the judge to the “excellent lawyer” that reduced your speeding ticket.

One movie that came to mind about lawyers is Liar, Liar with Jim Carrey. I’m sure we all know the story, and if you don’t, I encourage you to watch it because it is a great movie. As a lawyer, he constantly lies and cheats to win cases and money until one day, his son decides to make a birthday wish for his father not to lie. He then goes through life without the ability to tell a lie causing him to lose cases and causes him to lose credibility in his firm. So it’s kind of ironic actually, lawyers are supposed to help us with the law, but then they have their own ways to twist and turn facts in order to win a case. As I’ve seen so far in media, yes lawyers are sneaks, but I’m sure there are good, loyal lawyers out there. Good luck finding them.