Justice John Paul Stevens, with whom Justice David H. Souter, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Stephen Gerald Breyer join, dissenting
In a lengthy and spirited dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said the Boy Scouts had offered no evidence that it had any policy on homosexuality and that the absence of such a policy meant that the organization's shared goals could not be undermined by the acceptance of gay members and leaders. ""The evidence before this court makes it exceptionally clear that the Boy Scouts of America has, at most, simply adopted an exclusionary membership policy and has no shared goal of disapproving of homosexuality," Stevens wrote. Stevens also chided the court majority for what he said was its willingness to simply accept the Boy Scouts of America's own claims about the organization's views on homosexuality."Unless one is prepared to turn the right to associate into a free pass out of discrimination laws, an independent inquiry is a necessity," he wrote.” (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Boy+Scouts+of+America+v.+Dale)
“Justice Stevens’ dissent makes much of its observation that the public perception of homosexuality in this country has changed. Indeed, it appears that homosexuality has gained greater societal acceptance. But this is scarcely an argument for denying First Amendment protection to those who refuse to accept these views. The First Amendment protects expression, be it of the popular variety or not. And the fact that an idea may be embraced and advocated by increasing numbers of people is all the more reason to protect the First Amendment rights of those who wish to voice a different view.” (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/boyscouts.html)
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Argument-Part 6
In the case of the Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, I believe that the judges made the right decision in favor of the Boys Scouts. I agree that such an organization as the Boy Scouts of America have set a rule from the beginning of its inception to instill values in the youth. Even if homosexuality is somewhat acceptable now than it used to be, I believe that if a rule or “mission statement” was made that they should be allowed to follow it and make no exceptions. I have nothing against homosexuals, in fact, I have several gay friends. It's not for me to judge them because they are great people, whether or not they were gay. It is their choice to live that lifestyle, but I believe that the Boy Scouts of America has a right to do as they wish. I guess you can say I'm an old fashion guy and still believe in morals. According to the Scout Oath and Law, it states…
"Scout Oath
On my honor I will do my bestTo do my duty to God and my countryand to obey the Scout Law;To help other people at all times;To keep myself physically strong,mentally awake, and morally straight.”
Scout Law
Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, and Reverent"
(http://www.scouting.org/media/mission.aspx)
“The values the Boy Scouts seeks to instill are "based on" those listed in the Scout Oath and Law. The Boy Scouts explains that the Scout Oath and Law provide "a positive moral code for living; they are a list of 'do's' rather than 'don'ts.'" The Boy Scouts asserts that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values embodied in the Scout Oath and Law, particularly with the values represented by the terms "morally straight" and "clean."” (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/boyscouts.html)
"Scout Oath
On my honor I will do my bestTo do my duty to God and my countryand to obey the Scout Law;To help other people at all times;To keep myself physically strong,mentally awake, and morally straight.”
Scout Law
Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, and Reverent"
(http://www.scouting.org/media/mission.aspx)
“The values the Boy Scouts seeks to instill are "based on" those listed in the Scout Oath and Law. The Boy Scouts explains that the Scout Oath and Law provide "a positive moral code for living; they are a list of 'do's' rather than 'don'ts.'" The Boy Scouts asserts that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values embodied in the Scout Oath and Law, particularly with the values represented by the terms "morally straight" and "clean."” (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/boyscouts.html)
First Monday in October
The movie we watched in class today dealt with pornography and how it played in society back then. I think today’s porn compared to that of 30 years ago, during the 1970’s, have changed tremendously. I believe that modern day porn is more perverted, degrading and filthy than what it used to be. Pornography is readily available to everyone, especially with the internet. So much so, that porn websites appear in “pop-ups” luring you to check out their website even if you were not looking for it. Having access to these websites is not a good thing especially if children can find them easily if there were no parental supervision. In today’s society, it’s sad because we are so desensitized to all these explicit material that it is the norm. Back then, it was said to be taboo. I think if porn was to be only shown in theaters like they used to, then I think the industry would not profit as much as they do today. I think those who are into pornography will be ashamed to be caught seeing a porn film in public. With it readily available on the internet in the comforts and privacy of our home, it’s likely that more people will access these types of websites without any hesitation and avoid any possible ridicule or judgment from others.
My opinion on all this is that if you want to watch these explicative types of movies, go ahead. Everyone has the choice to watch it or not. Pornography is an industry so huge now, that it has become almost acceptable throughout the world. With the internet, porn reaches those who seek them. The industry will continue to operate and grow whether we like it or not. It’s a matter of setting better and stricter regulations that keep children from accessing these types of material.
My opinion on all this is that if you want to watch these explicative types of movies, go ahead. Everyone has the choice to watch it or not. Pornography is an industry so huge now, that it has become almost acceptable throughout the world. With the internet, porn reaches those who seek them. The industry will continue to operate and grow whether we like it or not. It’s a matter of setting better and stricter regulations that keep children from accessing these types of material.
Rule of law-Part 5
In summarizing the case, it involves a New Jersey man, James Dale, who was in the Boy Scouts of America for many years and upon entering college, he openly admitted that he was gay. Mr. Dale had applied for assistant scoutmaster, but when news got out revealing that he was a homosexual, his membership of the Boy Scouts was revoked. And because of this, Dale sued the Monmouth County Boy Scouts for expressly violating New Jersey's common law and bans on discrimination and in 1992, he took them to the New Jersey Supreme Court where he won. “In this manner, freedom of association may come into tension with the goal of nondiscrimination. Freedom of expressive association case law attempts to balance these competing claims—the right of a group to control its message versus the right of individual or potential group members to be treated without prejudice. The Court's precedents hold that compelling state interests, unrelated to the suppression of ideas, may justify some infringement upon freedom of association, provided the state does so by the least restrictive means.” (http://www.answers.com/topic/boy-scouts-v-dale)
It wasn’t until 8 years later that the case was taken to the Supreme Court. “After the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts may not exclude homosexuals from leadership positions, the Scouts were forced to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to protect their First Amendment rights. CIR filed an amicus brief urging the Court to respect the Scouts' freedom of association. The High Court ruled in favor of the Scouts 5-4, setting an important precedent for the right of groups to choose their own membership.” (http://www.cirusa.org/cases/dale_v_boy_scouts.html)
It wasn’t until 8 years later that the case was taken to the Supreme Court. “After the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts may not exclude homosexuals from leadership positions, the Scouts were forced to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to protect their First Amendment rights. CIR filed an amicus brief urging the Court to respect the Scouts' freedom of association. The High Court ruled in favor of the Scouts 5-4, setting an important precedent for the right of groups to choose their own membership.” (http://www.cirusa.org/cases/dale_v_boy_scouts.html)
Reasoning of the Court-Part 4
In an opinion written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, “the Court said that BSA enjoys a constitutionally protected right of "expressive association" that would be undermined if the organization were forced to accept the plaintiff as an assistant scoutmaster. Describing the Boy Scouts as a private organization that "believes homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values it seeks to instill in its youth members," Rehnquist wrote that "Dale's presence in the Boy Scouts would, at the very least, force the organization to send a message, both to the youth members and the world, that the Boy Scouts accepts homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior."” (http://law.jrank.org/pages/4831/Boy-Scouts-America-v-Dale.html)
William Rehnquist also reinforced and stressed that the forced inclusion of an unwanted person in a group infringes the group's freedom of expressive association if the presence of that person affects in a significant way the group's ability to advocate public or private viewpoints. First, the Court said that the BSA engages in expressive activity by seeking to instill values in young people, and its expressive freedom would be curtailed if it had to accept avowed homosexuals as members despite the organization's policy to the contrary. Second, Rehnquist stated that the forced inclusion of an avowed gay rights activist as an assistant scoutmaster would significantly affect the Boy Scouts' ability to advocate public or private viewpoints, since application of the LAD in this manner would significantly burden the organization's right to oppose or disfavor homosexual conduct. "In a lengthy and spirited dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said the Boy Scouts had offered no evidence that it had any policy on homosexuality and that the absence of such a policy meant that the organization's shared goals could not be undermined by the acceptance of gay members and leaders."The evidence before this court makes it exceptionally clear that BSA has, at most, simply adopted an exclusionary membership policy and has no shared goal of disapproving of homosexuality," Stevens wrote. Stevens also chided the court majority for what he said was its willingness to simply accept the BSA's own claims about the organization's views on homosexuality."Unless one is prepared to turn the right to associate into a free pass out of discrimination laws, an independent inquiry is a necessity," he wrote.”" (http://law.jrank.org/pages/4831/Boy-Scouts-America-v-Dale.html)
William Rehnquist also reinforced and stressed that the forced inclusion of an unwanted person in a group infringes the group's freedom of expressive association if the presence of that person affects in a significant way the group's ability to advocate public or private viewpoints. First, the Court said that the BSA engages in expressive activity by seeking to instill values in young people, and its expressive freedom would be curtailed if it had to accept avowed homosexuals as members despite the organization's policy to the contrary. Second, Rehnquist stated that the forced inclusion of an avowed gay rights activist as an assistant scoutmaster would significantly affect the Boy Scouts' ability to advocate public or private viewpoints, since application of the LAD in this manner would significantly burden the organization's right to oppose or disfavor homosexual conduct. "In a lengthy and spirited dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said the Boy Scouts had offered no evidence that it had any policy on homosexuality and that the absence of such a policy meant that the organization's shared goals could not be undermined by the acceptance of gay members and leaders."The evidence before this court makes it exceptionally clear that BSA has, at most, simply adopted an exclusionary membership policy and has no shared goal of disapproving of homosexuality," Stevens wrote. Stevens also chided the court majority for what he said was its willingness to simply accept the BSA's own claims about the organization's views on homosexuality."Unless one is prepared to turn the right to associate into a free pass out of discrimination laws, an independent inquiry is a necessity," he wrote.”" (http://law.jrank.org/pages/4831/Boy-Scouts-America-v-Dale.html)
Decision of the Court-Part 3
On June 28, 2000 the Supreme Court ruled in favor of The Boys Scouts of America. The case was decided on a 5-4 vote. "We are not, as we must not be, guided by our views of whether the Boy Scouts’ teachings with respect to homosexual conduct are right or wrong; public or judicial disapproval of a tenet of an organization’s expression does not justify the State’s effort to compel the organization to accept members where such acceptance would derogate from the organization’s expressive message," wrote Chief Justice William Rehnquist for the majority comprised of Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.” (http://www.onthedocket.org/cases/1999/boy-scouts-america-v-dale-james-06282000)
The Court also concluded that the 1st Amendment did not require that every member of a group agree on every issue in order for the group’s policy to be "expressive association." The Boy Scouts takes an official position in regards to homosexual conduct, and the Court majority found it sufficient.
"The presence of an avowed homosexual and gay rights activist in an assistant scoutmaster’s uniform sends a distinctly different message from the presence of a heterosexual assistant scoutmaster who is on record as disagreeing with Boy Scouts policy," wrote Rehnquist in a 19-page opinion. "The Boy Scouts has a First Amendment right to choose to send one message but not the other. The fact that the organization does not trumpet its views from the housetops or that it tolerates dissent within its ranks does not mean that its views receive no First Amendment protection." (http://www.onthedocket.org/cases/1999/boy-scouts-america-v-dale-james-06282000)
The Court also concluded that the 1st Amendment did not require that every member of a group agree on every issue in order for the group’s policy to be "expressive association." The Boy Scouts takes an official position in regards to homosexual conduct, and the Court majority found it sufficient.
"The presence of an avowed homosexual and gay rights activist in an assistant scoutmaster’s uniform sends a distinctly different message from the presence of a heterosexual assistant scoutmaster who is on record as disagreeing with Boy Scouts policy," wrote Rehnquist in a 19-page opinion. "The Boy Scouts has a First Amendment right to choose to send one message but not the other. The fact that the organization does not trumpet its views from the housetops or that it tolerates dissent within its ranks does not mean that its views receive no First Amendment protection." (http://www.onthedocket.org/cases/1999/boy-scouts-america-v-dale-james-06282000)
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Issues of the Case-Part 2
The reason why this case is before the court is because former Eagle Scout and assistant scoutmaster, James Dale was denied adult membership to The Boy Scouts of America. “James Dale entered scouting in 1978 at the age of eight by joining Monmouth Council's Cub Scout Pack 142. Dale became a Boy Scout in 1981 and remained a Scout until he turned 18. By all accounts, Dale was an exemplary Scout. In 1988, he achieved the rank of Eagle Scout, one of Scouting's highest honors.” (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/boyscouts.html) Dale’s membership was revoked after it was found that he was a homosexual and a gay rights activist.
In 1992, James Dale filed suit against the Boy Scouts, alleging that the Boy Scouts had violated the New Jersey statute prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in places of public accommodation. The Boy Scouts, a private, not-for-profit organization, asserted that homosexual conduct was inconsistent with the values it was attempting to instill in young people. "The New Jersey Superior Court held that New Jersey's public accommodations law was inapplicable because the Boy Scouts was not a place of public accommodation. The court also concluded that the Boy Scouts' First Amendment freedom of expressive association prevented the government from forcing the Boy Scouts to accept Dale as an adult leader. The court's Appellate Division held that New Jersey's public accommodations law applied to the Boy Scouts because of its broad-based membership solicitation and its connections with various public entities, and that the Boy Scouts violated it by revoking Dale's membership based on his homosexuality. The court rejected the Boy Scouts' federal constitutional claims. The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that application of New Jersey's public accommodations law did not violate the Boy Scouts' First Amendment right of expressive association because Dale's inclusion would not significantly affect members' abilities to carry out their purpose. Furthermore, the court concluded that reinstating Dale did not compel the Boy Scouts to express any message.” (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/1999_99_699/)
In 1992, James Dale filed suit against the Boy Scouts, alleging that the Boy Scouts had violated the New Jersey statute prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in places of public accommodation. The Boy Scouts, a private, not-for-profit organization, asserted that homosexual conduct was inconsistent with the values it was attempting to instill in young people. "The New Jersey Superior Court held that New Jersey's public accommodations law was inapplicable because the Boy Scouts was not a place of public accommodation. The court also concluded that the Boy Scouts' First Amendment freedom of expressive association prevented the government from forcing the Boy Scouts to accept Dale as an adult leader. The court's Appellate Division held that New Jersey's public accommodations law applied to the Boy Scouts because of its broad-based membership solicitation and its connections with various public entities, and that the Boy Scouts violated it by revoking Dale's membership based on his homosexuality. The court rejected the Boy Scouts' federal constitutional claims. The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that application of New Jersey's public accommodations law did not violate the Boy Scouts' First Amendment right of expressive association because Dale's inclusion would not significantly affect members' abilities to carry out their purpose. Furthermore, the court concluded that reinstating Dale did not compel the Boy Scouts to express any message.” (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/1999_99_699/)
Illicit
To be honest, I have done some things that were illicit, such as purchasing an imitation Rolex watch and downloading songs from torrent sites. I no longer own the Rolex watch and haven’t downloaded any songs illegally for about two years now. I just feel bad for being one of many, or know of someone, who contributed to these illegal activities in some form or another.
After watching the documentary “Illicit” in class today, I never realized that “knock-off” bags, purses, wallets, watches, and the list goes on, contributed to a bigger operation. It just amazes me how money has a big part in this. Everyone or most of us are greedy and selfish. It’s really sad how corrupted we all are in some way or another. It could be small things, but those involved in such operations such as manufacturing imitation handbags, pharmaceuticals, automobiles, and so forth, do it at a higher level and also know the risks involved. The scary thing for me is that after watching the video, it’s made me more paranoid of what is legitimate and what isn’t. I can’t fathom what will happen in the future since more and more people or groups continue to commit such illegal activity. There aren’t enough government funded organizations out there to catch these people in time and when they do, others still pop up somewhere else. The world is a big place and it is saturated with illegal activities that continue to harm innocent people.
After watching the documentary “Illicit” in class today, I never realized that “knock-off” bags, purses, wallets, watches, and the list goes on, contributed to a bigger operation. It just amazes me how money has a big part in this. Everyone or most of us are greedy and selfish. It’s really sad how corrupted we all are in some way or another. It could be small things, but those involved in such operations such as manufacturing imitation handbags, pharmaceuticals, automobiles, and so forth, do it at a higher level and also know the risks involved. The scary thing for me is that after watching the video, it’s made me more paranoid of what is legitimate and what isn’t. I can’t fathom what will happen in the future since more and more people or groups continue to commit such illegal activity. There aren’t enough government funded organizations out there to catch these people in time and when they do, others still pop up somewhere else. The world is a big place and it is saturated with illegal activities that continue to harm innocent people.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Supreme Court Case Progress
To date, I have done some research via internet only for my case on Boy Scouts of America v. Dale. I have a few resources that I have found that I will be using for my final project. They are from Cornell, APA, ACLU, CNN, Jrank.org, Legalcase.com, Firstamendment.org, and Oyez.org. After reading over some of the articles on the case, I am finally getting a better understanding of what the case entails. At first, I was a little confused because of the terminology used. I became more interested in the case because as I kept reading about it, it made me want to find more information that I could use in writing my project. Of the resources I’ve tapped into, most of them were similar with different views on them.
In order to prepare for the following week, I will dive more into the case and find out what led to it and hopefully have more information to write with. I am also going to look up the case in further detail, possibly go to the LRC and get more resources about the case.
In order to prepare for the following week, I will dive more into the case and find out what led to it and hopefully have more information to write with. I am also going to look up the case in further detail, possibly go to the LRC and get more resources about the case.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
The Boy Scouts of America v. Dale/Facts of the Case-Part 1
James Dale, a former Eagle Scout and assistant scoutmaster, was denied adult membership when The Boy Scouts of America(BSA) found out that Dale was a homosexual and a gay rights activist. "Dale filed suit against the BSA in New Jersey state court, charging that his expulsion as an assistant scoutmaster violated New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination (LAD). The suit sought money damages and a court order reinstating him as assistant scoutmaster. The trial court dismissed his suit, ruling that the BSA had consistently excluded any self-declared homosexuals. The court found that homosexuality, from a Biblical and historical perspective, was both morally wrong and criminal. The trial court's decision was overturned on appeal by New Jersey Superior Court, which concluded that the BSA was a "place of public accommodation" under the LAD. The court found BSA had not demonstrated that it was a sufficiently private organization to warrant constitutional protection under the freedom of expression and association guarantees of the First Amendment." (http://law.jrank.org/pages/4831/Boy-Scouts-America-v-Dale.html) "According to Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the Court held that "applying New Jersey's public accommodations law to require the Boy Scouts to admit Dale violates the Boy Scouts' First Amendment right of expressive association." In effect, the ruling gives the Boy Scouts of America a constitutional right to bar homosexuals from serving as troop leaders. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote for the Court that, "[t]he Boy Scouts asserts that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values it seeks to instill," and that a gay troop leader's presence "would, at the very least, force the organization to send a message, both to the young members and the world, that the Boy Scouts accepts homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior."” (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/1999_99_699/)
On Wednesday, June 28, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that a New Jersey anti-discrimination law that required the Boy Scouts of America to admit a homosexual man as a scoutmaster violated the Boy Scouts' First Amendment right of expressive association.
On Wednesday, June 28, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that a New Jersey anti-discrimination law that required the Boy Scouts of America to admit a homosexual man as a scoutmaster violated the Boy Scouts' First Amendment right of expressive association.
Pacific Heights
After watching the movie “Pacific Heights”, it made me wonder how some people could do the things Michael Keaton’s character, Carter Hayes, did. Basically, Carter Hayes, moved into an apartment owned by an unmarried couple. Actually, it was a home partially converted into an apartment. Carter Hayes apparently found the place in an ad and was interested in moving in. The couple, played by Matthew Modine and Melanie Griffith, were looking for tenants to move in. In order to pay for their mortgage, they needed tenants to occupy some of the rooms they were renting out. And part of their policy before accepting tenants, was that those interested in moving in were asked to fill out a background check. That’s where Mr. Hayes comes in.
Some of the red flags that popped up before Mr. Hayes moved in was when, 1) Mr. Hayes was asked to fill out an application, but did not do so. By just taking down the information that Mr. Hayes provided didn’t mean anything since he could have made up resources that he gave. As a landlord, that should have been the first sign of something wrong. 2) When Mr. Hayes’ background check didn’t go through, especially with the so-called “Trust” that he supposedly worked for. With any employment check, there should never be any hitches or anything of that nature. It seemed as Mr. Hayes was lying and there was something fishy about it. 3) Another sign was when Mr. Hayes offered to pay six months ahead in rent without filling out any application-that seems odd don’t you think? That makes him no one special. Just because he makes a lot of money, doesn’t mean he doesn’t have to fill out a background check. And 4) When Mr. Hayes told Mr. Goodman that he spoke to his girlfriend and he had no recollection of it, then he should have contacted her to verify whether or not she did speak to Mr. Hayes.
If these warning signs were taken into consideration, none of the problems that occurred would have happened. The couple in the movie should have been more aware and should have paid more attention to the red flags.
Some of the red flags that popped up before Mr. Hayes moved in was when, 1) Mr. Hayes was asked to fill out an application, but did not do so. By just taking down the information that Mr. Hayes provided didn’t mean anything since he could have made up resources that he gave. As a landlord, that should have been the first sign of something wrong. 2) When Mr. Hayes’ background check didn’t go through, especially with the so-called “Trust” that he supposedly worked for. With any employment check, there should never be any hitches or anything of that nature. It seemed as Mr. Hayes was lying and there was something fishy about it. 3) Another sign was when Mr. Hayes offered to pay six months ahead in rent without filling out any application-that seems odd don’t you think? That makes him no one special. Just because he makes a lot of money, doesn’t mean he doesn’t have to fill out a background check. And 4) When Mr. Hayes told Mr. Goodman that he spoke to his girlfriend and he had no recollection of it, then he should have contacted her to verify whether or not she did speak to Mr. Hayes.
If these warning signs were taken into consideration, none of the problems that occurred would have happened. The couple in the movie should have been more aware and should have paid more attention to the red flags.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
In the movie we watched in class today, “Wall Street”, there was a line “Greed is Good”, which is supposedly now a famous quote of all time from a movie. The film is basically about a wealthy man’s wish to sell off land that an airline company is doing business on for more money. He was supposedly going to help this airline company, but ends up going against his word. In the end, greed takes over and this wealthy gentleman decides to sell off the land for more money. If you think about it, it is the American Dream.
I suppose “greed is good” depending on the situation. If you are making money and not sharing the wealth, whether you do it through donation or helping out a cause, in most cases it is morally wrong. “Morals are concerned with behavior as judged by society.” (Essentials of Business Law, Liuzzo/Bonnice, P. 19). This is where greed can be bad. In our society, most of us are taught to share or help others out in need whenever we can. Some people grow up in poverty and some people are not. In a lot of cases, those who grew up and came from the “hood” or “ghetto” and got an education, a great career, and make lots of money-they usually end up giving back and do something positive for society. “The American culture, for example, holds that such characteristics as freedom, individualism, family life, fair play, hard work, and honesty are important.” (Essentials of Business Law, Liuzzo/Bonnice, P. 19). They go back to their roots and help others less fortunate and encourage them to succeed in life. In doing so, they do this because they know firsthand at how hard it is to come from a place where negativity thrives and make it in today’s society as a successful person. They become an example for those people. This is where being greedy need not apply.
“Greed is good” when you come from a society where there is nothing but negative words said about you, that you can never amount to anything, and you are called a failure. It is these times when you take all that negativity and turn it to a positive. Generally, when a person is successful and usually makes a lot of money, we wonder why they seem so greedy. Is it being greedy or just plain jealousy? If I made tons of money and came from a society where I was looked down upon while growing up and one day someone from my past came up to me asking me for some money, I would honestly tell them no and give them no time of day. Call it bitter, but I would not associate myself with anyone from my past who only talks to me or wants to be part of my life because I am wealthy or successful. To me that is wrong. I would only associate myself with those who were supportive of me and believed in me.
I suppose “greed is good” depending on the situation. If you are making money and not sharing the wealth, whether you do it through donation or helping out a cause, in most cases it is morally wrong. “Morals are concerned with behavior as judged by society.” (Essentials of Business Law, Liuzzo/Bonnice, P. 19). This is where greed can be bad. In our society, most of us are taught to share or help others out in need whenever we can. Some people grow up in poverty and some people are not. In a lot of cases, those who grew up and came from the “hood” or “ghetto” and got an education, a great career, and make lots of money-they usually end up giving back and do something positive for society. “The American culture, for example, holds that such characteristics as freedom, individualism, family life, fair play, hard work, and honesty are important.” (Essentials of Business Law, Liuzzo/Bonnice, P. 19). They go back to their roots and help others less fortunate and encourage them to succeed in life. In doing so, they do this because they know firsthand at how hard it is to come from a place where negativity thrives and make it in today’s society as a successful person. They become an example for those people. This is where being greedy need not apply.
“Greed is good” when you come from a society where there is nothing but negative words said about you, that you can never amount to anything, and you are called a failure. It is these times when you take all that negativity and turn it to a positive. Generally, when a person is successful and usually makes a lot of money, we wonder why they seem so greedy. Is it being greedy or just plain jealousy? If I made tons of money and came from a society where I was looked down upon while growing up and one day someone from my past came up to me asking me for some money, I would honestly tell them no and give them no time of day. Call it bitter, but I would not associate myself with anyone from my past who only talks to me or wants to be part of my life because I am wealthy or successful. To me that is wrong. I would only associate myself with those who were supportive of me and believed in me.
Smash-Me(Ex-Girlfriend) Doll
I’d love to put a hammer to a doll of my ex-girlfriend. It’s a legal way of dealing what I really feel about her right now. I’d love to go into detail, but I’d rather not. I don’t want to stoop to her level. It just upsets me and irritates me at the fact that someone so caring could be so deceitful. Lies after lies and being secretive led to her demise. I’m thankful I did not make a dumb mistake in marrying her. I think I’m going to go home and make a doll of her and run it over with my car. I just hope anyone reading this doesn’t think I’m a violent person because I’m not. Just understand my pain!
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Myspace Hoax Responses
"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!” Ro Vegas Design
I agree with you here since it was very immature of the 49 year old mother to get involved. It should have never escalated to this. Because of it, a child is dead.
“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.” JD Designs
People like Lori Drew need to grow up. There are more to life than these stupid silly games that people tend to play. What kind of responsibility is Lori Drew taking as a parent? How could she even call herself a parent? That disgusts me!
“The individual that acted out the hoax definitely has some moral, ethical, and values issues disorder. What type of mentally sane person would come up with such an idea?” Raw Impact Designs
I have to agree with you here. There are definitely some sick people out there. Today’s society is out of whack. It all goes back to how they were raised and the type of society they were brought up in. We have to get back to basics folks!
“She posted publicly viewable bulletins on MySpace calling her names and saying all kinds of things that were not true.” Anchor Drive Productions
Whatever happened to being upfront about things? If someone has beef with someone, then tell it to their face. Why take things this far? If it’s a personal issue between two people, then settle it between the both of you. Don’t let anyone else know your business.
In conclusion, I would like to say how upset I am at how some people can be so immature and resort to such matters. It never ceases to amaze me how something like this could have happened. If children were left to grow up as they should and never have interference from adults like Mrs. Drew, then things probably would have been okay. And the end result? It was Megan Meiers losing her life because of it.
I agree with you here since it was very immature of the 49 year old mother to get involved. It should have never escalated to this. Because of it, a child is dead.
“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.” JD Designs
People like Lori Drew need to grow up. There are more to life than these stupid silly games that people tend to play. What kind of responsibility is Lori Drew taking as a parent? How could she even call herself a parent? That disgusts me!
“The individual that acted out the hoax definitely has some moral, ethical, and values issues disorder. What type of mentally sane person would come up with such an idea?” Raw Impact Designs
I have to agree with you here. There are definitely some sick people out there. Today’s society is out of whack. It all goes back to how they were raised and the type of society they were brought up in. We have to get back to basics folks!
“She posted publicly viewable bulletins on MySpace calling her names and saying all kinds of things that were not true.” Anchor Drive Productions
Whatever happened to being upfront about things? If someone has beef with someone, then tell it to their face. Why take things this far? If it’s a personal issue between two people, then settle it between the both of you. Don’t let anyone else know your business.
In conclusion, I would like to say how upset I am at how some people can be so immature and resort to such matters. It never ceases to amaze me how something like this could have happened. If children were left to grow up as they should and never have interference from adults like Mrs. Drew, then things probably would have been okay. And the end result? It was Megan Meiers losing her life because of it.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
"Used Cars" Movie-Types of Crimes or Tort
In class today, we watched a movie called "Used Cars". After watching the film, we were instructed to form groups and come up with a list of crimes and/or torts that were committed in the video. My group consisted of me, Hannah, Jon, and Michael and here is a list that we came up with...
1. Bribery
2. False Advertising
3. Sexual Harassment
4. Perjury
5. 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
1. Bribery
2. False Advertising
3. Sexual Harassment
4. Perjury
5. 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
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Opinion of Grand Theft Auto Lawsuit
When I was younger, I had a Nintendo and Sega system. Eventually, I grew out of it. Rarely do I ever play video games anymore. As a grown up, I’ve never really had the interest in purchasing one. I think they’re great, especially with all the detailed graphics and types of games available. I wish I did own a Wii or Play Station, but I really don’t have the time play. I never realized that the games now are so realistic and mimic things that happen daily in today’s society. I’m familiar with the “Grand Theft Auto” series, but never knew that it came out with a version that showed sexual content.
After reading the article regarding lawsuit involving the video game “Grand Theft Auto”, I think I would side with the game company that was sued. I don’t think Rock Star Games and their parent company, Take Two Interactive Software, really did anything wrong with creating the game since they clearly labeled it “M” for mature, for players 17 or older. The grandmother, who sued the company because of the sexually explicit content, should be at fault for purchasing the game for her 14 year old grandson. Why did she give her grandson the game when she knew that it was meant for a mature audience? Isn’t that common sense? Apparently the grandmother knew the nature of the game and should have never purchased it if it was intended for a minor to use. It’s upsetting to me because all of this would have been avoided if she did research or asked someone at the store she bought the game at for more information about it before purchasing it. I’m assuming she did not read the label that was on the game before she purchased it. And even if she did, she should have seen it coming. I believe the grandmother could have made a better decision as an adult. As a parent, I would have never allowed it in the first place. That’s my opinion.
After reading the article regarding lawsuit involving the video game “Grand Theft Auto”, I think I would side with the game company that was sued. I don’t think Rock Star Games and their parent company, Take Two Interactive Software, really did anything wrong with creating the game since they clearly labeled it “M” for mature, for players 17 or older. The grandmother, who sued the company because of the sexually explicit content, should be at fault for purchasing the game for her 14 year old grandson. Why did she give her grandson the game when she knew that it was meant for a mature audience? Isn’t that common sense? Apparently the grandmother knew the nature of the game and should have never purchased it if it was intended for a minor to use. It’s upsetting to me because all of this would have been avoided if she did research or asked someone at the store she bought the game at for more information about it before purchasing it. I’m assuming she did not read the label that was on the game before she purchased it. And even if she did, she should have seen it coming. I believe the grandmother could have made a better decision as an adult. As a parent, I would have never allowed it in the first place. That’s my opinion.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Comment on Jaclyn Donatelli's Blog
I posted a blog on Jaclyn Donatelli's blog regarding what I thought of lawyers and here's what I wrote...
I’d have to agree with you 100% on the fact that lawyers are expensive. I actually spent almost $10,000 just to take my ex to court. And all I wanted was to see my daughters. Normally, it’s the women that take the men to court. But in my case, it was the other way around. Even if I did not buy a car or house at the time, I can honestly say that it was probably the best investment I’ve made. Because of it, I have joint legal custody with my ex and I see my girls every weekend. Although frustrating and time consuming-it lasted 2 years, I am happy that my daughters are in my life. That was my main goal. I’m very fortunate I was able to get a great lawyer to represent me. He may have been expensive, but he gave me what I wanted. He was someone I grew to trust since he was representing me. Throughout the two years that he was my lawyer, I saw more to him than the way most lawyers today are portrayed. Hey, they’re human too! It’s just sad that there are crooked lawyers as well. I guess the saying is true about “You get what you pay for”.
Personally, I have never been in trouble with the law. I hope it stays that way. If I ever need a lawyer, I’ll be sure to get a hold of you since you have the connections.
I’d have to agree with you 100% on the fact that lawyers are expensive. I actually spent almost $10,000 just to take my ex to court. And all I wanted was to see my daughters. Normally, it’s the women that take the men to court. But in my case, it was the other way around. Even if I did not buy a car or house at the time, I can honestly say that it was probably the best investment I’ve made. Because of it, I have joint legal custody with my ex and I see my girls every weekend. Although frustrating and time consuming-it lasted 2 years, I am happy that my daughters are in my life. That was my main goal. I’m very fortunate I was able to get a great lawyer to represent me. He may have been expensive, but he gave me what I wanted. He was someone I grew to trust since he was representing me. Throughout the two years that he was my lawyer, I saw more to him than the way most lawyers today are portrayed. Hey, they’re human too! It’s just sad that there are crooked lawyers as well. I guess the saying is true about “You get what you pay for”.
Personally, I have never been in trouble with the law. I hope it stays that way. If I ever need a lawyer, I’ll be sure to get a hold of you since you have the connections.
Myspace Hoax Gone Awry
After reading the story about Megan Meier, it made me think of my own children. As a father of three beautiful girls, I can’t fathom what it would be like to lose any or all of them. It just amazes me first of all how the parents involved allowed their daughter, Megan, to create a Myspace profile in the first place. What’s even troublesome to me is that fact that Megan’s parents gave her the permission to have an online romance with a sixteen year old boy in the first place. The girl was only thirteen years old.
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? How could they call themselves parents? It makes me upset as a parent to see something like this happen. And because of it, Megan is no longer around.
As for the other party involved, I just think they were plain stupid and immature to harass Megan. How could the mother, who was reportedly responsible for the crime, become so consumed in her own daughter’s problems? Doesn’t she have a life? I’d love to go on and on about parenting, but have some common sense folks. People need to grow up. It should have never escalated to this in the first place. If the mother involved with supposedly creating a fictional “boy” did not do what she did and left the situation alone, we would still have Megan around. She should have never interfered in such a matter. Ethically and morally, it may have been wrong. “Both ethics and morals are concerned with standards of right and wrong” (Essentials of Business Law, Liuzzo/Bonnice, p. 19). I’m not sure if it was wrong legally since there weren’t any evidence to support that the other party intentionally wanted to physically harm Megan. Why didn’t the mother accused of driving Megan to her death just leave it alone? Whatever happened to the good ole days when we all grew up dealing with things person to person? Mano y mano. Back in the days, when anyone had a problem or “beef”, we would confront the person face to face and tell them our peace of mind. Yes, it may have probably gotten out of hand-possibly a fight or something, but it was taken care of. We grow up and learn from the experience and hopefully one day laugh about it all. Why make it such a big deal? I know times have changed, but I honestly feel that it should have never come to this. It is all this technology that has become a part of our daily lives. You either embrace it or not. It is a culture influenced by today’s society. “An individual’s values are significantly influenced by those held by groups to which he or she belongs.” (Essentials of Business Law, Liuzzo/Bonnice, p. 19).
In all, I feel that Megan’s parents are to blame in this situation. If they did not allow Megan to start a Myspace account, this would have never happened. Secondly, if an apology is what they need, then the other mother involved should be the better person and do so. After all that’s happened, Mr. and Mrs. Meiers have filed for divorce. It’s sad that all of this could have been prevented. What we should learn from all this is basically the way we raise our children. In today’s society, we need to be more in tune with what our children do. We need to keep them close and grounded. I think we’ve lost sight of that.
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? How could they call themselves parents? It makes me upset as a parent to see something like this happen. And because of it, Megan is no longer around.
As for the other party involved, I just think they were plain stupid and immature to harass Megan. How could the mother, who was reportedly responsible for the crime, become so consumed in her own daughter’s problems? Doesn’t she have a life? I’d love to go on and on about parenting, but have some common sense folks. People need to grow up. It should have never escalated to this in the first place. If the mother involved with supposedly creating a fictional “boy” did not do what she did and left the situation alone, we would still have Megan around. She should have never interfered in such a matter. Ethically and morally, it may have been wrong. “Both ethics and morals are concerned with standards of right and wrong” (Essentials of Business Law, Liuzzo/Bonnice, p. 19). I’m not sure if it was wrong legally since there weren’t any evidence to support that the other party intentionally wanted to physically harm Megan. Why didn’t the mother accused of driving Megan to her death just leave it alone? Whatever happened to the good ole days when we all grew up dealing with things person to person? Mano y mano. Back in the days, when anyone had a problem or “beef”, we would confront the person face to face and tell them our peace of mind. Yes, it may have probably gotten out of hand-possibly a fight or something, but it was taken care of. We grow up and learn from the experience and hopefully one day laugh about it all. Why make it such a big deal? I know times have changed, but I honestly feel that it should have never come to this. It is all this technology that has become a part of our daily lives. You either embrace it or not. It is a culture influenced by today’s society. “An individual’s values are significantly influenced by those held by groups to which he or she belongs.” (Essentials of Business Law, Liuzzo/Bonnice, p. 19).
In all, I feel that Megan’s parents are to blame in this situation. If they did not allow Megan to start a Myspace account, this would have never happened. Secondly, if an apology is what they need, then the other mother involved should be the better person and do so. After all that’s happened, Mr. and Mrs. Meiers have filed for divorce. It’s sad that all of this could have been prevented. What we should learn from all this is basically the way we raise our children. In today’s society, we need to be more in tune with what our children do. We need to keep them close and grounded. I think we’ve lost sight of that.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
What Do I Think of Lawyers?
I think of lawyers as being both good and bad. But then again, I suppose it just depends what side of the fence you're on. I’ve seen them in action on both sides of the spectrum. I’ve personally dealt with lawyers when my parents divorced, when I was a witness to a crime, and the time I took my ex to court for child visitations. I did not have any problems with the divorce and family lawyers, since it dealt more of the best interest of the children involved and rectifying the situation in a civil manner. I hate to stereotype, but the criminal lawyers I have come across were very keniving, a bit sneaky, cold-hearted, with some sort of agenda. They wanted to know all of my business-always asking questions that seemed irrelevant. You’d be surprised in the things they will do to try and get information from you. It's like the stuff you see in the movies.
There are many lawyers who really want to help you and there are those who just want your money. I really don’t like those types of greedy lawyers. I also hate the fact that they charge you up the ying-yang for every single thing-from the copying of documents, to calling them up just to ask a question, etc. It’s ridiculous! I recall retaining a lawyer and he charged me $250 per hour. Ouch! I have to say he was a great lawyer, but it hurt my pocket dearly. I can honestly say he was worth every penny. I can go on rambling about how I don’t like this, or I don’t like that.
In all, lawyers can work against you or for you. What matters is, is the fact that they get the job done the first time around. I’ve seen people jump from one lawyer to the next. It’s just one of those things where you can’t live with them and you can’t live without them. As much as we loathe lawyers, we really need them.
There are many lawyers who really want to help you and there are those who just want your money. I really don’t like those types of greedy lawyers. I also hate the fact that they charge you up the ying-yang for every single thing-from the copying of documents, to calling them up just to ask a question, etc. It’s ridiculous! I recall retaining a lawyer and he charged me $250 per hour. Ouch! I have to say he was a great lawyer, but it hurt my pocket dearly. I can honestly say he was worth every penny. I can go on rambling about how I don’t like this, or I don’t like that.
In all, lawyers can work against you or for you. What matters is, is the fact that they get the job done the first time around. I’ve seen people jump from one lawyer to the next. It’s just one of those things where you can’t live with them and you can’t live without them. As much as we loathe lawyers, we really need them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
