The Naked Nymphomaniac

Today in class we watched a film that was based around Justices debating the First Amendment and pornographic material. In the film, the main argument was between a very liberal Justice, and a very conservative Justice who also happened to be the first female Justice. I have to admit, I usually stick to the side of freedom of speech as protected under the First Amendment, so in many ways, I agreed more with the liberal Justice (though not so much his attitude). I think the First Amendment is a tricky one, and issues regarding it can get pretty controversial. Generally the idea is it does not protect against something that can cause harm to another, but where do we start drawing that line? I think in many ways, that’s where the bulk of the issues come from. Like the Conservative Justice was trying to say, that is harms people in the psychological sense. That it harms the way of life of the American People. But who is the one that ultimately decides what is right or wrong in that sense? Is pornography wrong because it’s truly harmful or do we only see it as such because our Puritan background deems that nudity and sex is shameful and needs to be hidden away? I think ultimately it comes down to the individual, or in the case of a child, the parent or guardian to determine what is right or wrong for them.

As far as the issue of a woman on the Supreme Court, is because of the issue of woman’s rights. By allowing a woman on the Supreme Court, in a way can make the American people feel that they many different views and beliefs are being drawn upon for these decisions. While it does seem kind of unfair that they are only allowing woman candidates to take the place of the female Justice, I can understand it from the view that they want to let the American people feel that there isn’t a sexist issue. If a case that may have more bearing on a woman than a man, such as abortion, were to come to the Supreme Court, having a woman there would mean that it isn’t being decided by people who have no connection to its implications.

Illicit

Today we watched a video on the illicit trade problem that is affecting the world today. Whereas some types of it may seem more “harmless” than others, the video seemed to have the idea that you can’t draw that line when it comes to this type of illegal activity. Many people, weather they realize it or not, have probably been involved in some sort of illicit trade. Many times, it’s because it’s cheaper than the name brand product or easier to obtain. After watching the film, I am more aware of just how dangerous this sort of thing can be and just how widespread. I’ve never been the type to lend any credence to a deal that just seems “too good” or to pay any attention to those online advertisements for things like cheap meds, etc , etc. However, it seems like no matter how cautious I might be personally, it’s a little scary to know that the choice may not always be in my control. Like the case of the cough medicine in Panama. The medicine was distributed to the people by their government. People should be able to trust in something of that nature, given to them by the people who should know better, will be safe. But because all down the line, people accepted and transported the goods in “good faith”, many people lost their lives. Unfortunately, this seems future is pretty bleak as far as solving this problem. Illicit trade has been with us since trade itself, I’m sure, and as the film said, the only real way to solve this problem is to end it at the demand level, but there will always be a demand for something someone can get cheap and easy.

Progress on the Case thus far

I’ve done a bit of research so far on my case, The New York Times v. United States (1971). I’ve found about 10 sources that I think contain a lot of good information, including the actual statements of concurrence or dissent from the justices. I find this case quite interesting, really, and it does have a lot of relevance even today. It seems to be an example of the American people winning over the big government. It shows how once, the media actually acted as a bit of a “watch dog” on the dealings of the government, and wasn’t afraid of publishing things that showed the government in a not so great light. Of course, much of this happened during the Vietnam War, when the American people were already pretty upset about how things were going and with the Nixon Administration in general. It relates to recent events and the “War on Terror” and how right after 9/11 the media didn’t dare print anything bad about the US government and the president. When did the media become so scared?

Pacific Heights

In class today we watch a clip from a movie called Pacific Heights. In the part of the film we watched, we witnessed a pair of new homeowners trying to rent a portion of their house in order to make the rent. They rent one of the rooms to an elderly Japanese couple, but the other gets rented to what quickly starts shaping up to be a nightmare. There were some red flags they should have noticed. One of the things that jumped out at me as we watched was when asked to fill out information about is credit and the like, he at first tries to distract the landlord with the amount of cash he has on him, stating he was willing to pay 6 months up front because he travels a lot. When the issue of the rental application is pressed, he begins talking about how he doesn’t have the usual credit history because he does work for a private firm. He pretty much starts saying that what he does is a secret and that there is no way that it could be verified under normal circumstances. He gives a name to a lawyer that supposedly would be able to verify his claim, but says that if he talked to anyone one else they wouldn’t be able to tell them anything. So, right there should have been a huge warning. Even if he was telling the truth, they should have gone with the safe route of just not leasing to him. Also, if he did decide to lease to the guy, he probably should have at least asked for the deposit and first month’s rent right then, seeing as how the guy said he had so much money on him right then. I believe the landlord did tell him he could not move in until he had paid, but the guy snuck on in anyway, so requiring a lease agreement before hand probably wouldn’t have helped.

Smash-me doll

If I could have a smash-me-something doll… I think I would have a smash-me-boss doll. I won’t name her name, just in case, but she is currently my biggest source of frustration. She treats my fellow employees and I like we have no idea what we’re doing, when in actuality she doesn’t know many of the basic things she should. Or maybe she does, but decides to change her mind about what’s the right way when it makes her look like the better one. That’s something she does pretty often. Many people have issues with their bosses, but I usually get along with most of mine. Most of the store has the same problem with her, so I don’t think it's just me. I bet the doll would sell pretty well among my coworkers.

Greed is Good

Is greed good? The word “greed” itself carries a negative connotation. We’re taught at a young age that the idea of greed is wrong; it’s even one of the seven deadly sins. However, perhaps it isn’t as bad as we’re lead to believe. Though I think, like many things, it is best in moderation. Greed can help drive a healthy business environment, yet too much greed can lead to shady practices that in turn lead to a company’s downfall. Greed can lead to a competitive business environment, and competition between companies is often good for the consumer. Greed is what drives a company to make a profit. Greed is also what entices an individual to become a stockholder in a corporation in hopes that they will get a significant return. If these stockholders have a quorum, “the minimum number of shares necessary to be present at a meeting” (Essentials of Business Law, Liuzzo, 268) then they may even have a hand in how things are run by voting in directors, and those directors then appoint officers to handle the day to day tasks of the corporation. These directors and officers then have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders. “Fiduciary responsibility means that directors and officers will exercise their authority while working under a duty of loyalty and a duty of care.” (Essentials of Business Law, Liuzzo, 270) This means that they have a legal and ethical obligation to work diligently and prudently with personal integrity, honesty, and candor. In the end, they have a responsibility to make money for their shareholders. However, greed to make this money can lead to people doing thing illegally. Doctoring their financial records, selling to companies that don’t really exist, and many other things that can be considered both torts and crimes. This is where greed gets us into trouble. Many of the economic problems we have right now come from excessive greed, and the shady dealings of those consumed by the bottom line.

MySpace Hoax in Other People's Words

“What do you think about the MySpace Hoax Case? I think the acts committed by Lori Drew and her daughter, are not criminal. Life is life and people can’t legally be held responsible for causing someone to have a bad day. Lori Drew is not responsible for the state of mind of the 13 year old, nor her weight or her choice in friends. The parents of the 13 year old girl are however responsible for her choice in online browsing, her health, state of mind and peer group. The personal circumstances regarding the case are disturbing and the situation does become deeply immoral but I feel it is not criminal.” - Inside Out Clothing

When I read this quote, I don’t necessarily like what it says, but I have to agree that it’s true. The case does fall much more into something moral than legal. While we might feel outraged at what happened, it is because according to the standards of our society, we feel a moral outrage.

“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)”- RO Vegas Design

This is something I disagree with. I don’t disagree with the idea that the mother used the account for a type of defamation. However, I disagree that it was slander, rather it should be libel. Libel is the term used for when the defamation is in the form of the written word. Seeing as that they used the account to spread rumors and lies via the internet, I would assume that falls under a form of written word. Of course, with the way the internet works these days, perhaps it needs a classification of its own.

“Since the person who committed the hoax feels there was no malicious wrong doing, and the parents of Megan believe the opposite, the case will be left to the courts to decide the outcome.” – Raw Impact Design

The heart of this issue is surely a matter of one person’s morals vs. another. The mother who perpetrated the hoax doesn’t feel she is responsible, and if I remember correctly she was even quoted as saying something akin to that she isn’t responsible, she didn’t pull the trigger. Perhaps the courts will decide that it falls under some sort of crime, but I think that it doesn’t have much legal standing for criminal action.

“I think the lady responsible should be prosecuted for harassment because she knew what she was doing and she knew who she was doing it to. She started by making a false identity for herself presenting herself as somebody she wasn’t to get closer to Megan, this is no different than a sexual predator.” – JV Home Design

I do think this brings up an interesting idea, though. Could this fall under a prosecutable form of harassment? I think the idea that it’s no different than a sexual predator might not be quite right, perhaps this case will bring about some sort of legislation to protect minors from this sort of treatment online. Though, I think the biggest obstacle to this is the fact the internet is a global arena, and then we possibly run into the moral standards set by other countries. That is probably why when you sign up at websites like MySpace, you are required to agree to their terms of service, a sort of contract, weather you take the time to read it or not. Many of the site’s TOS’s have parts about prohibiting the use of the accounts to harass others, and that’s part of the misdemeanor charges they got the mother on.