EOC Week 8: Progress on Case

As of now I have done a lot of research on just the main facts of the case. I have read many articles and have just absorbed the information for better understanding. I have found more resources, and will continue to find more until I really get the just of the case. Once I have the full understanding of the entire case I will start to put down the information in my own words on paper. I also am starting to jot down any notes that I find from sources that may be different than others. Going into this week I will have the case down and ready to proceed to the other task at hand. I am still very interested in the case because it’s related to my field of work. Hopefully by Sunday I will have most of the information that I will need.

Final Post 1: Supreme Court Case

NATIONAL CABLE & TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V.BRAND X INTERNET SERVICES (04-277) 545 U.S. 967 (2005) 345 F.3d 1120, reversed and remanded.

Small Internet service providers in the era of dial-up service had equal access to home users because the first services were provided over Plain old telephone services (POTS) which were regulated as common carriers. Cable television operators then started to use the coaxial cables to provide high speed access. Small ISPs like Brand X wanted to use the coaxial cables, owned by private cable companies but using public rights of way, in a manner like common carriers. The FCC refused, and Brand X subsequently sued. The FCC won in the three judge panel in the Ninth Circuit but then lost en banc.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-277.ZS.html

EOC Week 7: Pacific Hieghts and Red Flags

The movie Pacific Heights had 3 signs and reasons for not letting Mr. Haze rent their studio. First sign was that Mr. Haze did not want to do a credit check and offered cash on the spot instead of going through the legal process. The fact that Mr. Haze did not want to do it should have put an immediate red flag. Second thing that the landlords should have noticed before allowing him to rent was his references that were given to the Owner did not check out. This should have also been a red flag as his information was falsely given. The confidentially of the Trust situation also sounded hockey. The third part that I thought was the clearest red flag was not that of legality but of suspicion of how Mr. Haze acted as an individual. He lied about meeting the wife, and lied about the noises. I think that just these signs alone I would have told Mr. Haze that he could not rent. What I thought was funny is why the landlords did not call the cops when they first had signs of none payment, or just simply the fact that there was no contract signed between the landlord and the tenant. It is really hard to understand why they did not pick up on these things, but then again it is a movie which we all know how stupid people are just to tell a story. I also wanted to touch up on the issue of the cockroaches. This is grounds for eviction; I just wish we could have finished the movie in class. Well, hope they kick his ass out. Watch out for red flags in your own situations. Lesson learned.

EOC, WEEK 5: MySpace Hoax Response

I would like to shed some more information on the topic of the MySpace Hoax, and the death that came from it. I have read others blogs and found quotes that I would like to input on.

“You would think in our society that parents would be much more responsible than to pick on and ridicule a 13-year-old girl.” Lee, Evelyn Marie http://shrimpgirlproductions.blogspot.com/.

I thought this comment to be very interesting because it shows how people in our society can be. It explains how easily a death could have been avoided if the parent messing with the 13-year-old girl was responsible. I feel that just this statement of responsibility shows the need for punishment.

“Legally I don’t think there is a way to directly prove that the defendant was the cause of the young ladies death. I do however believe the comments she wrote were libel and played a key role in her suicide but still cannot directly say it was the sole cause.” Santamaria, Yuvani OA http://haveatyoudui.blogspot.com/.

In my blog I was detailed on the charge of libel and how it directly affected this situation. If in any case this charge could be valid. I do believe however that libel was a direct cause of death because without the hurtful remarks or slander there would have been no death.

“The rationalizations behind why she chose to create the account and harass the girl are irrelevant. Maybe she did not intend for the girl to kill herself but she did however intend to do the girl harm.” Ter Avest, Anthony Eugene http://anchordriveproductions.blogspot.com/.

Exactly the point I want to bring up. If you intend to do harm, and you go through with it, you are doing HARM. I think just the simple fact that she intended to do harm she should realize that she is largely at fault.

“The fact that someone would take advantage of a communications tool to hurt someone else is rather atrocious, though not impractical or all that surprising.” Stockstill, Michele C. http://houdinimation.blogspot.com/.

I do think that this was not surprising as this type of case happens all the time over the internet. But even so this doesn’t mean that punishment should not be in place. As we all know Words hurt more that punches. Thank goodness that more laws are being put in place for situations as these.

EOC Week 4: Used Cars,Laws Broken

Group Members: Roland, Michael Polak, Jon, Hannah


List of Laws Broken:

1. Bribery
2. False Advertising
3. Sexual Harassment
4. Perjury
5. Destruction of Property
6. Underage Driving
7. Speeding
9. Hit and Run
10. Trespassing
11. Assault with a Deadly Weapon
12. No Seatbelts
13. Reckless Driving
14. Child Endangerment
15. Misrepresentation
16. Libel
17. Slander
18. Defamation
19. Conversion
20. Lying under Oath (Perjury)

EOC, Week 3: Grandma Sues "Grand Theft Auto"

Florence Cohen, 85 years old, of New York has sued Rock Star Games and Take Two Interactive Software Inc. She claims that she bought “Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas” for her 14-year-old grandson without knowing the game contained sexually explicit scenes, and adult rated content. The game did have a rating of “M” which stands for Mature. The “M” rating means that the game is only to be played by video game players that are age 17 and older. Cohen argues that even though the game says 17 plus, the game should not be allowed to contain adult material for adults over the age of 18. Rock Star Games and Take Two Interactive Software Inc have responded by taking out the hidden content in the games and re programming the video came to avoid unlocking sexual content.

I feel that Florence Cohen was indeed entitled to sue Rock Star Games and Take Two Interactive Software Inc. I myself know that this game has always had this kind of content and never really cared, but at the same time I never saw it from the grandmother’s point of view. The fact is that even if the game needs to be hacked to achieve this content, it’s still available to minors. Anything containing sexual content must be at least rated for views 18 and older; because it was not given this rating Cohen had all the right to attack the makers of the video game. Now if the game was rated “R” Cohen would not be able to go after the software companies, and at that point I would say it was the grandmother’s responsibility, and she should go take a walk and eat some egos! However the facts are stated, and sorry Rock Star but you have to be more careful when it comes to who you market your games too. Still the games are great, and I wouldn’t discourage any player who has read this to continue to play as long as they realize this is a game, not life.

EOC, Week 2: Comment

I came to an agreement with Brittany Hill's blog, and I left this comment to show my appreciation for her post, and why I agree.

I agree with the statement about needing lawyers and not putting them into one category. We have many types of lawyers. We have the Lawyers who are honest and hardworking. As well as Lawyers who only seeks the final check at the end of the case. Lawyers do twist our words in situations as you have experienced, and that’s the tricky side to them. We really don’t know if they are Two faced are not. But as you said the law profession is important, and it takes the right kind of people. Good post and I like your Opinion.

EOC, Week 2: Megan Meier, 13-year-old Missouri girl hung herself

Megan Meier, 13-year-old Missouri girl hung herself after an internet Romance that was setup by local neighbors. Her death was a result of a harsh breakup with a fake internet boyfriend named Josh. Neighbors setup a MySpace account in order to find out what Megan was saying about their own daughter, but soon turned into a game of emotions. Megan hanged herself after a trail of harassing MySpace messages. The Neighbors after the death of Megan only sent a message saying they feel partially responsible, but not guilty nor feel any remorse. Currently they have not been charged with Megan’s death, and are not guilty of any crime. The question is should they be guilty, and responsible for Megan’s Death? In my opinion I think that they should be responsible, and be penalized for harassing a 13 year old girl. Just because you don’t do the killing yourself, you are capable of implanting such ideas, or damaging them emotionally to cause them to be unstable. Reality is that there are no laws for harassing on MySpace because it is new to society, however harassing does fall within the constitution as illegal. The neighbors did commit libel which (“is the spreading of damaging statements in written form-including pictures, cartoons, and effigies. Defamation on radio, television, and web sites is also considered libel.” Business Law, Anthony L. Liuzzo, Joseph G. Bonnice, pg. 45). I believe that they should also be judged as liable, (“When a person has been judged to be responsible for a loss, he or she is said to be liable.” Business Law, Anthony L. Liuzzo, Joseph G. Bonnice, pg. 45). It is the same to say verbal words and hurt someone as it is to send them an email with written hurtful words. This case should be for Megan in my opinion. Because of a woman’s Negligence, and well though plan to bully Megan she should face the consequences. I hope that because of this case, people understand the importance of the laws that protect individual’s rights, and that just because you think that playing a game is not illegal they better think twice. No one’s emotions should be played with, and that’s what lead to Megan Meier’s Death. Justice shall be served, and recognition of a new crime will hit the streets. Our hearts shall be out to Megan.

EOC Week 1: What do I think of Lawyers?

Lawyers are not always the best when it comes to ethical business practices, but they are defiantly necessary with the way the law works today. It seems that today you always need some extra help when it comes to proving yourself, or defending against slander. Lawyers provide a little relief because at least you know that with either a well known lawyer or a state provided lawyer you have some chance of getting a little slack off your offense, or get what is deserved when winning your case. Lawyers are not however someone to admire at times, as they can be some of the most two face people in any business. I think that there is defiantly corruption in all lawyers, and it’s hard to avoid the difficult decisions that could make you a successful lawyer. However I do believe that there are lawyers who do provide honest service, but we all know that when it comes down to the fine line anything can change. Lawyers are needed today though, and will never be obsolete. There is always someone out there waiting to sue for odd reasons, and therefore we as humans will always need a way to defend ourselves from others. Lawyers are a gateway to peace, or a gateway to doom. Never less you can count on them when you have no way out, and all in all I think that Lawyers are there for your defense. They are a defense with cost, but it is our fault as humans for creating the demand.