5. The Established Precedent

In overturning the interracial marriage bans, and thus obliterating the precedent of Naim v. Naim, the court established that marriage is a fundamental civil right, and therefore cannot be barred on a discriminatory precedent. It outlined what the proper exceptions to the Equal Amendment Clause were - that if there were a permisive, valid, state objective which necessitated otherwise illegal and/or discriminatory action, the bans would have been justified. However, with no permisibe or valid state objective requiring the action other than the separation of races, the laws were not fit for constitutionality.

The ruling established a packing punch for civil rights, as the obliteration of segregation in public places had done before it - that separate could not be equal, and therefore could not, and would not, be protected by the court without vigorous scruitny of the circumstances.

4. Reasoning of the Court

Throughout the Court's statements are a variety of quotes relating back to what is an is not covered by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Simultaneously, it discusses the exceptions, notably the end decision of Korematsu v. United States in 1944. "At the very least, the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to the "most rigid scrutiny," Korematsu v. United States (1944), and, if they are ever to be upheld, they must be shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html)". Korematsu v. United States was a case regarding the deportation and containment of Japanese-Americans by the U.S. military and whether or not it was an action required for security purposes. The Court had ruled that the Equal Protection Clause did not apply if there was a legitimate reason necessitating the ordinarily discrimitory act (http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar18.html).

With that clear outline of what constituted the legal exceptions of the Fourteenth Amendment, Chief Justice Warren had gone on to state: "There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html)". This translates to the State failing to present a permissible state objective other than the separation of races. Consequentally, the Court's ruling on Loving v. Virginia overturned a prior ruling concerning an identical matter - Naim v. Naim. "In Naim, the state court concluded that the State's legitimate purposes were 'to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens,' and to prevent 'the corruption of blood,' 'a mongrel breed of citizens,' and 'the obliteration of racial pride,' (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html)".

The Court's final thoughts were as such:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html)".

This quotation is perhaps the end-all-be-all of what the Court was considering. Chief Justice Warren had already outlined the invisible reasoning behind the barring of interracial marriage, thus establishing that there was no permissible State objective other than the separation of races, which the Fourteenth Amendment barred. Within his final thoughts, he specified that Marriage is considered one of the 'basic civil rights of man', concluding that it was not a right that could be infringed - it is inalienable, and therefore protected under individiual choice.

In summary: Virginia's argument was not substantial enough to sustain the laws they had set into place. Though the rulings were overturned and interracial marriage made legal, some laws banning on it remained on the books as long as 2000. Alabama was the last to remove the ban from its books (http://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/al/main03.htm).

3. Decision of the Court

After the grueling legal process of justifying their marriage, the Lovings were offered a decision of comfort. On June 12th of 1967, the case was decided and closed. The Supreme Court had ruled in their favor, stating it clearly with a 9-0 vote (http://www.answers.com/topic/loving-v-virginia). It was unanimous. The Virginia ban on inter-racial marriage was unconstitutional, and thus stricken from the books.

Written in Chief Justice Warren's closing statement regarding the case is the underlying reason: " The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. We have consistently denied the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html)."

Essentially, it was found that Virginia's argument that the law was constitutional on the basis that it said no white person could marry a person of color, as well as the vice-versa, was frivolous. The law was written only to ban the marriage of a white person to a person of color, thus was an outline of White Supremacy, and an unconstitutional act violating the Fourteenth Amendment.

2. Issues of Loving V. Virginia

"This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment" (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html)

The above statement was issued within the introduction of one of the closing statements to Loving v. Virginia. It's relevance to the case as a whole is perfectly clear, as it distinguishes the exact issue which drove the case into the Supreme Court. The Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause states the following:

"Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. " (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/11.html#8)

The bolded statement is where the constitutionality of Virginia's ban on interracial marriage surfaces. The Lovings were citizens of the United States, and, likewise, citizens of the State of Virginia. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, it was proposed that banning their marriage and relationship would be a violation of their right to due process, as well as equal protection under the laws of the country and state. On the flip side, the state of Virginia argued that the ban on interracial marriage was constitutional, because it excluded whites from marrying people of color, as well as excluded people of color from marrying whites. The law did not apply to interracil marriages between 'people of color' - such as a latino woman and an Asian man.

First Monday in October

I have never made my opinion of censorship unknown. In fact, of all things to float through my mind, censorship comes as the one I hold most dear. This is either liberal, or it’s the truth and the price of real freedom. Justice Snow stated something along the line of “It doesn’t matter if it’s crap – it has the right to be crap”. I concur. My personal offense to the material of certain products and developments is irrelevant to the legal standing of said products. Offense is subjective, and you cannot base a legal principle upon what is effectively subjective. Law, in and of itself, is intended to be objective. For personal morality to infringe upon the rights of an individual is to establish that one person, or set of persons, opinion is more valid than that of another. Government, law, is set into play to protect the rights of the minority, not to appease the consensus of the majority.

“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.”

There has been a lot of argument regarding what the meaning of ‘speech’ is. Speech is often understood to be synonymous with expression. On public property, a man is free to do as he wishes provided his actions do not infringe upon the rights of others or violate legal statutes. In the case of the movie in question, a legal statue was violated – but that raises the question of constitutionality of the statue, does it not? The question posed to the court is not whether or not a pornographic film had violated the law, but whether or not the film was within its realm of constitutionality, and whether or not the statue infringed upon the right of free speech. I believe that the statue did, as it effectively barred the existence of something based on the moral consensus of the majority. The majority’s objection to pornography is irrelevant. Is there a practical reason for the ban? Is there a scientific, statistic-based study proving that the existence of films such as The Naked Nymphomaniac somehow cause harm to society, and should therefore be outlawed? There’s a lot of concern over dignity and the effects of porn, yet I raise the question: how has anyone’s dignity been affected by the existence of porn? Have the actors been degraded? I believe not, and certainly if they had been taken advantage of that raises an onslaught of different legal issues. However, what we are speaking about involves an action between two adults who may consent to an action. Two legal adults can consent to having sex, being filmed, and having that film distributed.

I, however, support a rating based system. I believe the rating system in place is adequate, though its enforcement is slack. As the rule goes, no one under the age of 17 can see a film that is rated ‘R’, and, likewise, a pornographic film cannot be purchased by someone under the age of 18. I have no issues with this arrangement; it ‘protects children’ while simultaneously allowing first amendment freedoms which may be disagreeable to exist harmoniously with dissent of its existence. As the rule goes: if you don’t want to see it, don’t watch it.

This raises me into other inquisitions and concerns. Pornography distinguishes itself as sexual exploits for sexual gratification and viewing. It’s the equivalent of watching two chimps go at it in a zoo – minus the chimps, plus the humanity. This, surprisingly, does not offend me. I’m not startled, shocked, or sickened by the object of sex – if anything, I’m passive. Maybe this is a product of the new age, but I can’t recall ever being raised to comprehend or believe such things. Sex, censorship, obscenity, never touched my home – which is something I’m grateful for, as it’s a mark of educational freedom on my behalf. Regardless, sex is not offensive. Nudity is not offensive. I have never understood the public outrage of the human body, or of natural human action. However! I have always been confused about the passive viewing of extreme violence. Torture-films are becoming popular with the innovations of Saw, Hostel, so forth and so on. The Slasher genre of horror films has evolved to become something bloody, grotesque, to the point in which graphic images resembling war time horrors can be wagered. For the love of anything, Hostel featured an eyeball dangling from a socket, as well as a man drilling through the legs of a teenage boy with a power drill. When I pit this acceptable form of entertainment expression against porn, I wonder why porn requires an NC-17 labeling in most cases. Hostel and Saw passed the marker for an R rated film. All of the Saw sequels have passed the rating for an R rated film, including one featuring an individual whose rib cage is torn to shreds. These images, I feel, are more detrimental to the morality and well-being of society than the projection of sex on a movie screen.

Even so, I stand by my thoughts: it’s a movie, and I have the right to see it or not to see it. I choose not to see it, because I find the images disturbing, if not traumatic. However, I have friends who get excited and start laughing because they like a good thriller movie and have some grotesque senses of humor. No offense taken – I have no business barring them from their gory escapades, just as I have no business barring them from porn – and vice versa. We’re legally consenting adults.

If the concern is about accessibility to children, then regulation and distribution need to be addressed. I feel the rating system does it well when cinema managers actually do what they’re supposed to and check I.Ds while telling parents they can’t take their five year old into the theater to see an R rated film. Accountability to manage the accessibility to minors, or parental responsibility. I felt the same about Mature rated games – parent buys game for child, the parent is responsible, because the labeling is correct.

Ahem, this is getting rather long, isn’t it? Jolly good, because it’s important that it be said: parents need to be accountable for their kids and the material their kids are sifting through. If they’re concerned about pornography on the internet, monitor your child’s bloody internet activity until they are of legal age, by which time, even as a parent, you have no authority to prevent them from the action. For the sake of time, I’m going to stop swimming in circles. Point in case: I don’t believe in censorship. I believe in ratings and distribution regulation. Even the most grotesque, disgusting, loathsome of films, artwork, statements, deserve to be stated. They do not infringe upon the rights of anyone, but preventing their existence infringes upon the rights of not only the creator, but the viewers.

As an edited afterthought, yes, I would also be inclined to support the legality of prostitution. Again, I see no reason behind barring consensual acts between legal adults. If a woman, or a man, wants to sell their sexual service and status, so be it. I have no authority or right to prevent a consensual act between legal adults, and I see no reason why the State should either.

The second half of this question was in regards to the importance of a female Supreme Court Justice. I have mixed feelings about the specific importance of women on the court – but I feel that there is an importance regarding ‘minority’ or ‘suspect classes’, as some define it. It’s my opinion that the court should have representatives of suspect classes. It should have diversity – ethnic diversity, sex diversity, so forth and so on. Then again, I guess I’m one of those bloody hippy-liberal folks who believe in equal representation. The significance of a woman on the Supreme Court is a mark for feminism, and it’s the object of hope for other suspect classes. That’s how I view it. It’s a sign of progression.

Illicit Activities

"Have you ever committed an Illicit act?", asks the judge.

The teenager replies: "Who has not?"

Asking whether or not the current generation has ever downloaded a song, a movie, a program, or otherwise ever participated in the "Illicit market" is redundant. It's almost an understood characteristic of modern day culture. You would be hard pressed to find any single teenager who has not, at least once, done something, even in ignorance - which I have a number of times (such as purchasing what I thought was a legitimate copy of Photoshop when it turned out to be a copy - the advertisement had shown the box, the CDs, everything official, so when it arrived on my door step as a small package with a burned CD, naturally I was all "what?").

Nevertheless, that's not the point. The question was 'have you ever committed an illicit act?'. The answer is: once upon a time when I was in middle school and peer-to-peer networks were fresh. I stopped because I'd rather pay for my merchandise than risk killing my computer thanks to monitoring ware, pop-under advertisements, which bypassed by filters, or worse. Not only that, I have some integrity - and had integrity then. I rarely downloaded anything if I could obtain it reasonably in the U.S.

I don't download anymore. Contrary to the belief that teenagers all download, I quit, and I purchase my songs from iTunes, or I use my CDs, or I borrow CDs from friends who bought theirs - which, by the way, I see nothing wrong with - it's not the same thing as peer-to-peer, and it's definitely not the same thing as 'buying a knock-off Gucci bag on the streets of New York, thus funneling money to Mexican Drug Cartels'. My borrowing a CD my friend legally purchased from, say, Wal-Mart, does not funnel money to Mexican Drug Cartels. Certainly, it depletes the record sales of the record label, but, in my opinion, what's the problem? Say my little sister bought a CD - am I not allowed to use that CD because I wasn't the one who purchased it, therefore, even with the permission of my sister, I can't use it? Bullocks, I say.

However, this is where I come in and say that I do believe peer-to-peer sharing can indirectly funnel money to Mexican Drug Cartels, or the Mafia, or whatever. In a peer-to-peer network, there's a 50/50 chance that what you're downloading happens to be monitoring ware that can track your passwords, find your social security if it's anywhere, your credit card information, etc., etc. It's plausible that, if such ware were implanted onto your computer, you could become the victim of identity theft. The money stolen from you could be sent to Mexican Drug Cartels. No doubt, it possibly could, though it could also be sent to some obscenely intelligent programmer in Nova Scotia. Food for thought, and another reason why I don't believe downloading is worth it - unless it's advertised free from an official sort, or is underground/idependently marketed samples from unsigned bands / film-makers.

There's your answer: I did once, though the material is long since gone, and I'm scot-clean, baby. Scot-clean.

Supreme Court Update

There has undoubtedly been a bit of a late start on my behalf. Fortunate for me, I'm quick at locating educational resources (always search for the .edu or indication of legitimacy as a resource, correct?). The case that I chose was Loving v. Virginia; I chose it for good reason. The topic matter is the subject of debates even in the modern time. That is not to say people protest interracial marriage, but I'm sure you know what I'm alluding to - they had hearings on March 5th in California regarding the topic, and one of the key points often referenced amongst debaters is interracial marriage and its relevance to the current situation.

Regardless! I skittered about the internet like a sleuth mouse and dug up some delightful resources regarding Loving V. Virginia, including a website detailing quotes from the court's ruling, another detailing the entire history, and the third outlining the history of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is my intention to review the case and outline the key points throughout the week, as well as begin solidifying my reference sources (as more than three seems legitimate for any research assignment). However, first thing is first thing: identifying who was sitting on the bench at the time of the case, as well as who voted concurring, and who voted dissenting.

1. Loving V. Virginia

In June of 1958, Mildred Jetter and Richard Loving were married in the District of Columbia, which, at the time, had laws permitting their marriage, which was interracial. Shortly after being wed, the couple moved and was subject to what was the majority law of Virginia: no interracial marriage. "At the October Term, 1958, of the Circut Court of Caroline County, a grand jury issued an indictment charging the Lovings with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages" (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html).

Shortly thereafter, the Lovings claimed guilt to the charge, leading to a year-long jail sentence. The judge overviewing the trial, however, claimed he would suspend the sentence if the Lovings would "leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years" (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html).

Choosing to leave, the Lovings moved back to the District of Columbia, and, several years into their exile, filed a complaint in a state trial court. They claimed that the Fourteenth Amendment was violated.

The Fourteenth Amendment states: "all persons born or naturalized in the United States," which included former slaves recently freed. In addition, it forbids states from denying any person "life, liberty or property, without due process of law" or to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of its laws" (http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/14thamendment.html).

After the case went through both the state trial court, and the court of appeals, it was filed for the Supreme Court, which accepted it into its docket on the basis of questionable constitutionality.

Smash-Me-Doll

The concept of violent stress relief is hardly anything new, although most anger management counselors will tell you to avoid such stress relief habits. Why? Because those habits supposedly lead to a cycle of rage or negative reactions to stressors. That depletes the fun of this prompt, though, doesn’t it? Even with that bit of logic, there are hundreds upon hundreds of people I wish I had a doll of to smash or something - for various reasons. Most of all, I wish I had one of Fred Phelps. Why? Because the man has infuriated me from the moment I first heard of him. His ranting; his raving; his hateful ignorance - I don’t care about hypocrisy - who protests the funerals of dead soldiers or hate crime victims? Has he no sense of modesty, or of shame, or of respect? And he calls himself a minister. To me it’s one of the most obnoxious things on the planet to hear any news related to that bloody man.

Then just ignore him! That’s what people will say, and, for the most part, it is largely possible to ignore Fred Phelps. It’s not like he’s based in LasVegas. Even so, I’ll run into stories about him here and there, sometimes even in the News Paper, and it drives me absolutely bloody nuts. He’s as bad as Bill O’Riley out at Fox News. And, yes, yes, yes! I would most definitely love a “Smash-Me-Doll” with a commemorative gold hammer of Bill O’Riley - who preaches to the choir and basically calls any dissenting opinion that comes his way ‘hostile’ or ‘stupid’. That new innovation on his show of the ‘hate o’meter’? C’mon. That’s arrogance. It measures all phone calls that aren’t sucker-kissing him as an extreme hate - even modest ones that simply say ‘I disagree’, not just ones that are filled with vulgar or maddening swear-words. He’s a fear-monger, and, in my mind, he plays on the same tactics as Phelps. Therefore, it’s an equal annoyance.

Oh. Yes, yes, yes. If I were going to have a Smash-Me-Doll, it’d have to be of one of those two men.

“Greed is good”, so states the fictitious character of the 1980s hit “Wall Street”. From a technical standpoint, it’s difficult to argue the stance. The philosophy and survival of human greed is historically evident in a Darwinian theory: survival of the fittest – which generally is an application to the strongest or craftier members of any given species. This, of course, includes homo sapiens – humans. The greedy prosper. In a medieval era, those riddled with greed and self-intentions were often wealthy members of society in comparison to more compassionate individuals attempting to be selfless. A saint was not a baron, and a baron was not a saint. As the assumption goes: the nice guy finishes last.

This is a very clear-cut understanding of practicality. Very few people are willing to do something without compensation, and those who are generally find dissatisfaction in their professional work. Speaking from experience, I’ve indulged in numerous free-projects as an illustrator and cartoonist for a good friend, who not once offered me pay, but accepted my earnest charity for sake of knowing I wanted to draw and love partnerships. Even so, when push comes to shove, I would brush off the projects or set them on a back-burner, resulting in numerous confrontations about this or that – but the case was that I was doing it for fun, not personal gain; I was receiving nothing but a learning experience out of the matter, and while still good friends with my on-off partner, we’ve come to an agreement that work is not possible without incentive, without earning – and artistic passion is not enough incentive to work on a potentially fifteen volume graphic novel series while trying to also pursue occupational endeavors to survive in a world of “have a paycheck or no bread”. In that respect, I have to agree with the philosophy of greed is good. I’d be lying through my teeth like a hypocrite otherwise considering I will do nothing for anyone without compensation or exchange – although, compared to most artists accepting commissions, I’m obscenely cheap (most commissions, even sketches, go for about $15-$25 when privately exchanged; I sell across the board for $5. Damn cheap! But I also don’t have a solid portfolio). Therein lies the reasoning: who in their right mind would genuinely offer up lengthy or complicated services for no additional fee or exchange? Even odd-workers or road-travelers accept meals for their services. The only exception I find within this is an exchange between friends for sake of honest good-will.
Again. Money breeds incentive, incentive breeds quality. Even passionate, creative people are not cheap; they’re demanding, difficult, almost prudish people who want their say and want to be treated professionally for their craft. Anyone who tells an artist ‘I’m not paying you to draw’ is going to get a swift pop to the face. Because money breeds incentive, incentive breeds quality, and why would anyone do commercial work without compensation? It’s not the same as doing what you want to do for fun.

This brings me to an interesting point from Essentials of Business Law: Contracts for labor and materials. “A contract for labor and materials, even though it involves $500 or more, need not always be in writing to be enforceable … The UCC provides that ‘if the goods are to be specially manufactured for the buyer and are not suitable for sale to others’ the requirement of a written contract does not necessarily apply. The contract will not be binding if the buyer repudiates (cancels) the oral contract and the seller receives notice before they begin manufacturing the goods. If, however, the seller has begun manufacture or made a commitment, the cancellation is not effective (Essentials of Business Law 6th ed., Liuzzo & Bonnice, pg. 216)."

The reason I bring this up is because greed in and of itself, in this case, as applied to an occupational world, is absolutely appropriate. Say I was working on the graphic novel project with my partner, and we had an agreement that I would actually be paid (this being if we weren’t incredibly close friends to the point of which I do 80% of his illustration work for free if he asks?). If I had gotten through the first three volumes, and the agreement was that I would be paid something like $500 per book, if he canceled on me after three books, I would have some protection and my time, efforts, resources, and supplies would not have been wasted on a dupe project. To me, that’s acceptable greed – whole-heartedly. We had an arrangement, I need my bread – and just because someone had a second-thought after a project began does not excuse the fact that I need my money to survive. Point in case: it’s greedy to say “I need the pay for what I’ve done” – but is it wrong? No. It’s not wrong to pursue it. That example would a $1500 deal, and, time-wise, it would be up to nine months of work, possibly less, possibly more, depending on the length of the book. Damn right that’s worth pursuing – and, as I mark, I find the UCC’s exception to contracts acceptable. I wouldn’t be furious or demanding pay if I hadn’t even started something yet, but it’s a different peddle of fish if I have already invested my work and time into a project when I could have been doing something else.

Similarly, disclaimers can be construed as greedy. “A denial or repudiation in an express warranty is known as a disclaimer and serves to limit the effectiveness of a warranty (Essentials of Business Law 6th ed., Liuzzo & Bonnice, pg. 234). ” Limiting the warranty protects the company from having to pay and respond to every crackpot occurrence or accident that leads to the destruction of their product. Like, say, you’re selling computers and the warranty stipulates that it covers physical damages to the computer for up to a year. Adding in a disclaimer ‘warranty does not cover damages exceeding $200’ or something is greedy – as it’s designed to limit the services that were designed as a good-will gesture between a buyer, seller, or buyer and manufacturer. However, from a business perspective, I would put that in as a disclaimer too. Why? Because I know how many major accidents can happen to electronics. I knew someone who left their laptop on top of their car and drove off. It fell off, obviously, and was smashed against the ground. Their warranty covered this – which was good, but their stupidity was left at the expensive of the company who provided the warranty. Love my friends to tears, but, c’mon, they completely destroyed it. Companies that offer full warranties like that are saints, but I wouldn’t hold it against a company if they added disclaimers to protect themselves from having to be responsible for the irresponsibility of a customer.

In short: yes, greed is good. But I will state that so is good-will and relationship building. Money is incentive, but it isn’t everything. You can’t run a company on money alone.

Myspace Hoax Responses

“The case was about a lady who created a fake profile on MySpace to check if a girl was saying things about her daughter. The lady and other people that helped her create the profile about a sixteen year old boy flirted with the girl that was suffering from attention deficit disorder, depression and a weight problem for a few months. On October 15 2006 he sent her a message saying that he didn’t want to be her friend anymore because he had heard that she did not treat her friends well. She also got a message saying that the world would be better without her and saw posts that said many defamatory things about her. “A defamatory statement usually holds a person up to hatred, ridicule, or concept; or cause a person’s esteem, respect or social position to be diminished” Essentials of Business Law, Liuzzo-Bonnice pg 45. The girl was found dead in her bedroom the next day.” – JUS Productions.

The interesting thing about the case is the resulting death of the young girl because of statements made under false identification. Defamation is a perfect example of what occurred, as there was reasonable intent on behalf of the offenders to generate comments of hatred and ridicule. Considering the nature of the phrase ‘the world would be better off without you’, it is not an illogical notation; it’s actually a well-fitting charge – and I offer kudos for identifying it.

On a general note, the case is far more complex than simple defamation. Additional offenses, such as harassment, could be connected, as the messages were ongoing, not stationary or isolated to a single event. There are also policy violations with the website itself – which are the only things the offenders were really charged with – which can be described as something of a breach of contract. Conspiracy is defined as an agreement of two or more persons to commit an illegal act. As illegal acts were committed by a multi-member party, conspiracy is also a potential charge for the case.


“As I analyzed it, I came to this thought; how would they have known that Megan would go to the extreme of committing suicide? Also, who’s to say that this is the cause of the attempt? As said in reports she was already depressed. The true answer lies with Megan. Despite all these possibilities, I think what these three women did is still wrong.” – Theopod.

I can understand where this sort of a statement may come up. From a logical standpoint, they cannot be charged with murder; hence the reason they have not been charged with murder, and have only faced charges such as cyber-bullying and policy violation. However, taking into consideration the fact that an adult was involved in the harassment of a minor which inevitably resulted in death, one could wager verbal abuse, as well as negligence or something of the equivalent. Murder is not an accurate legal term, but manslaughter may actually be appropriate. Manslaughter is a charge often associated, at least to my memory, with deaths resulting from negligent acts in which the intent may not have been to kill someone, but did result in death – such as leaving a child in a locked car on a hot day, driving drunk and crashing, hitting pedestrians (which only becomes murder if you flee the scene, otherwise it’s manslaughter). There was no ‘malicious intent to kill’, hence no murder, but there most definitely is responsibility for the indirect occurrence of the girl’s death. However, this is only applicable with visible proof pointing that the girl’s suicide was related to the actions of the offenders. Considering the profile of the case, it’s possible that a note was left behind or other tid-bits that could trace cause and effect. If it were a general suicide, it likely would not have made news – if there was no association between the incidents of harassment and the suicide, why, then, would investigation have been warranted?

“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.” – Flip Beats Productions.

I am not a parent, but I am an older sibling. Ironically, my little sister is thirteen years old and dating a fifteen year old boy, though not online. From general experience, I’m not sure that the relationship may have been evident to the parents. I know that my little sister began dating her boyfriend long before anyone within the family ever knew – and in the case of online relationships, the potential for obscurity is there. Still, I think the article had mentioned that Megan spoke to her mother about the issues, which sort of obliterates that whole thought. I simply felt the urge to make the notation of how parental permission or responsibility is not always … For a lack of better words, possible – though, as a parent, you likely know this and have experienced many of the crazy antics of young kids.

Prior to that statement, you had said this: “It just amazes me first of all how the parents involved allowed their daughter, Megan, to create a Myspace profile in the first place.” I do understand this part of the whole scenario. The internet is the in thing. It’s huge. When I was a kid, it was starting to boom and grow, this being the 90s. As the result, it was mostly and adult thing. I wasn’t even allowed to sit at the computer without someone watching me, and usually I’d play games on floppy disks. However, in today’s society, certain aspects of technology are quite literally expected of youth. Myspace profiles are almost as essential as cell phones to some teenagers, and they’re a means of communication, especially with old friends who may be spread out. According to the article, the parents behaved as mine did when I was little and using the computer for my floppy disk games. They monitored her when she was on the computer, which I believe was a responsible arrangement for allowing her to at least have a Myspace profile. Even so, it isn’t all that surprising, and it’s actually very common for young preteens, sometimes even young kids, to have Myspace profiles and be using the internet rampantly. It’s sort of just a shift in culture. Can the parents be held accountable for the mess? I’m not sure that they can, especially when they had enacted reasonable measures of a reasonable person. The alternative would have been ‘no profile’ – but kids, right? If there’s a will, there’s a way, and I’m sure they had taken that into consideration before deciding it was better to know what their daughter was doing and where than to tell her ‘no’ and never really be sure if she listened or not.

“The misdemeanor the mother was found guilty was only in part because she failed to adhere to the Terms of Service of Myspace.com, which you much agree to when you sign up for the site, and are expected to follow, even if you choose not to actually read it. This might start bringing about more pushes for more regulation and laws for the internet. Though I’m against heavy regulation of content, perhaps some form or protection when it comes to defamation might be for the better.” – ShrimpGirl Productions.

I’m against regulation of the internet and its content for the most part, though I agree entirely about protection against defamation and harassment, or other such cyber-crimes. Actually, that’s exactly what they’re called: cyber-crimes. Laws and regulations are already enacted within modern times, some even stemming from this particular case (anti-bullying legislation is especially noted!). The complication with regulating the internet, however, stems from the fact that the internet is composed of multiple parties of multiple cultures and multiple laws or regulatory standards. The free exchange of ideas and communications are ideal, but it’s virtually impossible to regulate on an international scale, therefore some protections are limited. We can only hope for international law to cover the tracks and further protection against anti-bullying and cyber-crimes. This actually raises an interesting question involving another suicide. There was one recently where a teenager committed suicide on his webcam with a crowd of hundreds, possibly thousands, watching and egging him on. In reality, bystanders would have been held by law to intervene if there was not already an intervention – I believe the immediate threat of suicide is actually considered the same way an auto accident is. You have to stay on the scene and act. You can’t just ignore. However, the bystanders were not held accountable for egging on the boy, or attempting to intervene or, er, do anything whatsoever? So there’s an interesting question: where in the law do certain things on the internet belong – such as harassment, or good Samaritan laws, as I believe they’re called?

List of Illegal Activities in 'Used Cars'

Group Members: Theo, Geo, Anthony, Jesus.

1. False Advertising
2. Slander
3. Conspiracy
4. Assault and Battery
5. Bribery
6. Destruction of Property
7. Tampering with Witnesses
8. Contempt of Court
9. Under Aged Minors driving.
10. Speeding
11. Attempted Murder
12. Endangerment of a Minor
13. Misrepresentation
14. Sexual Harassment
15. Gambling
16. Perjury
17. Reckless Driving
18. Leaving the sight of an accident
19. Driving the wrong way
20. Tail-Gating
21. Unregistered Vehicles

Grand Theft Auto's Big Donnybrook

Is it possible to escape the whirl-wind of drama resulting from ratings boards and parents who disregard them? I think not! My experience with Grand Theft Auto has amounted to that of any other teenager in the days of double-0s; it’s buried into culture, scarcely a mystery, and if you haven’t at least seen the game play, you likely crawled out from under a rock. That would be the teenager code of Grand Theft Auto. I played the original game when it first came out, though I wasn’t the one to buy it. Contrary, my parents had bought it as a Christmas gift for my younger sister. That’s right – younger! Despite the Mature rating, the evident gangster violence, they still went off to buy it. Frankly, it was shallow and rather boring. Even my younger sister grew tired of it. I thought I'd never hear from it again beyond the occasional mention in conversation; yet, here we are, and I'm reliving the moaning, groaning anguish of a law suit that I am invested in, yet simultaneously disinterested in. Why? Oh, motion pictures and a general hatred of seemingly double-standard censorship.

One way or another, Grand Theft Auto made its debut. It was here to stay, and it held ambitions to top the charts as the edgiest game of the century. In fact, it can be argued that Rockstar’s ambition was and always has been to push edgy, controversial games onto the market. This, I believe, is not an inherently bad thing when the target audience is older teen (which is what the Mature rating implies on any video game). Even so, that raises eyebrows. The promotion of gangsters and bullying? In a post-Columbine, gang ridden time, that’s almost too much. But the controversy was not about these legitimate things, which seemed somehow acceptable without qualm. The controversy was about something basic. Sex, and a strip of code that could easily be altered to unveil such context within the game.

My initial response is: It’s Grand Theft Auto, what do you expect? In a world of gangsters, car thefts, and general violence, sex seemed implied. I believe that any reasonable person would have seen it coming. However, this is not how business works, and games with extensive sexual content are typically not rated Mature, but AO, or NC-17, like any pornographic material. This is where the controversy comes from – that the ratings claimed “M” when the content fit guidelines for “AO”. Yet, without the mod, was the game suitable for M? It’s possible, though it may have been borderline at the time. Frankly, I thought Hostel deserved an NC-17 rating from film boards, but it didn’t receive that for its graphic torture (nor has Saw). Grand Theft Auto is a basket of kittens compared to the obscenely delivered Slasher genre of horror films. I’m confused as to why parents are upset about sexual content. It falls back to ratings – but with a rated R film, anyone seventeen and up can see the movie, which is essentially the “M” rating of video games. Voila! There’s my deduction: why is graphical violence in R rated movies not protested, but sexual content is? It’s alright to watch someone’s eye dangling from the socket, but not to see a guy get laid? Apologies! From my personal stand-point, I would much rather pornography be available under a “anyone seventeen years or older can see this” than the radical gore of films like Saw. But this isn’t about violence. This is about sex. Sex, sex, sex! How fascinating! Is it just me, or is society easily offended by flesh, while simultaneously providing sexual education courses for fourth graders in a variety of cities (some school districts in Texas require progressive sexual education starting as early as the fourth grade – I had classes in Elementary, Middle, and High School discussing sexual organs, intercourse, and all of that wonderful nonsense! Sex wasn’t a mystery, and it generally isn’t nowadays, hence why I wonder what the big deal is). Ahem. Regardless, following legal guidelines of circumstance: was the company at fault for not identifying that there is sexual content within the video game? Well, are all motion picture companies responsible for sexual conduct within their movies if they don’t provide a warning? Was Titanic responsible for Rose’s naked portrait; were the creators of the remade Miami Vice responsible for the sexual actions of the characters? Or what about the infamous 8 Mile? If you call one entertainment genre on it, call them all – and this is my qualm. Why was it relevant to the content of Grand Theft Auto and the video game industry, when they followed guidelines similar to that of motion pictures? Sex is bloody sex. I, for one, am sick of hearing about its vulgarity. It’s disinteresting.

Comment on jd Design Blog

After browsing the blogs, I came across jd Design's post regarding lawyers. My response was:

"I actually find this opinion to be well-constructed. Lawyers are an expensive necessity when you get caught up in a legal tangle, and while a number are crude, there a number not so crude with good intentions. However, it is gray territory. You can't be sure if a lawyer is trustworthy or more bent than twisted metal. Lawyers are like enigmas. They're mysteries that you figure out gradually as you get to know them as people.

Even so. They are just people. Even they are stuck in tight spots they can't escape due to their job. It's rather sad. "

The Myspace Hoax

I saw the headlines for this story what seems like ages ago. The initial reaction has always been 'this was made for theatre', though I don't mean that in an indifferent manner. The story itself is so tragic that it seems impractical. It's like something the Greeks would construct if they had modern assets and inspiration to fuel their onslaught of depressing mythology. It's that fictitious of a reality. Nevertheless, it is real. It is solid - and a kid is dead as the result of an ill-intended conspiracy.

Megan Meier could be described as ordinary. Based on readings, she was an emotional, bubbly, preteen girl addicted to Myspace - which reminds me of my little sister, who is at that funny stage of life. Regardless, this kid suffered from depression amongst other things; she was medicated, but even then, she was impressionable. What happened to her was the result of someone taking advantage of that impressionable nature. A mother of a former friend had created a fake teenage boy on Myspace, elaborately concocting the character of Josh Evans to woo and crush Megan Meier. With contributions from her daughter and another party, the mother broke the spirit and confidence of a preteen, a child, already subjected to enough melodrama in the world of teen-hood. Megan Meier committed suicide after "Josh Evans" berated and spread negative comments about her, even telling her that the world would be better off without her.

From a legal stand point, things are tied up. There has been no real retribution, although there have been societal changes accommodating the seriousness of online harassment. According to an MSNBC, the alleged conspiracy group had not apologized for the matter, and no criminal charges had been pressed in the years following Megan's suicide. Why? Because there was no law accommodating the situation, therefore they were going scotch free while law enforcement struggled to find a solution to the complication. It wasn't considered a crime. At the time.

However, it could be considered a Tort, or "a private wrong that injures another person's physical well-being, property, or reputation" (Ch. 3, Pg. 31, The Essentials of Business Law, Liuzzo, Anthony and Joseph Bonnice). While the act did not violate a legal statue, it did cause injury of another person's physical well-being. Similarly, the group could be held accountable for defamation and libel which are defined as: "Defamation is the harming of a person's reputation and good name by the communication of false statements ... Libel is the spreading of damaging statements in written form" (Ch. 4, Pg. 45, The Essentials of Business Law, Liuzzo, Anthony and Joseph Bonnice). That was reason enough for a valid pursuit, and after a series of legal struggles, the mother who had generated the hoax was convicted of three misdemeanor charges relating to computer hacking and fraud. However, the jury found it difficult to convict her of the few felony charges she was up against - namely Conspiracy.

From a personal stand point, I have little words. The Internet is serious business - that's a joke people like to make, but it's undoubtedly true. People formulate real relationships over long distances, and I know that I have, having several friends who I've known for years living in Ontario, New York, California, and even across the globe in Australia, Britain, and Switzerland. Certainly it's a cautious step, but, nevertheless, people do formulate strong bonds with other people. It happens - and in that respect, the Internet is serious business that masquerades as a unique rendition of real life and ... Not quite real life? 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.

I do believe this is a cautionary tale - more so to Internet goers formulating close friendships. At the same time, does this affect me and my Internet habits? Hardly, though I think it's something important to be spread and known by anyone using social networking sites or communication forums. I find it sad. Terribly, really - and for that reason, I'm not sure I can formulate a grandiose or elaborate opinion. I simply find it sad. Suicide is a sad thing. It's not a joke, and it's not something easy to take in. Even when the death is that of a total stranger.

What Do You Think of Lawyers?

What do you think of lawyers? It sounds like a funny question. The automatic response I'd expect when asking that question is: corruption. They're mind-sucking, money-grubbing monsters who would lick your shoe or sell their own baby for a little jingle-change. However, that is not what I actually think about lawyers. I don't buy the ideology that a lawyer is just a mind-scuking monster with no compassion. That's a little cruel; it's also generalized, and about as bizarre as the idea that all art students are liberal-hippy-junkies and anti-government. It's nonsense, and I don't like generalizations. I also don't understand the negative connotions behind something that was intended to be inherently positive. In fact, once upon a time, it was positive to be a lawyer, to have any affiliation with the law.

Law is a gray thing. It's dirty, almost disgusting at times, and it's an industry that tests your morale and sense of self. If you don't bend yourself, then you're likely not going to succeed. If you're the sort of person who must be faithful, 100%, then you're likely not going to succeed in law - and this can be described as a crying shame, though not an absolute truth. I do believe there are genuine lawyers. I do believe there are individuals who go into law for the sole purpose of protecting the individual rights and well-beings of their clients, or their countries. I believe that in the same way that I believe not all lobbyists are vile individuals willing to bribe their way in. There's always the exception to something - the good, and the bad. Law, in its raw political context, has the ugly going on, but, no, I don't hate lawyers, nor do I believe they're out for my soul. Even if I was sued out the wazoo, I still probably wouldn't hate lawyers - for exactly the reason I stated: there are the genuine, however invisible, and I will admire their noble actions or sticktoitiveness (which isn't a word, but you understand the point!). It takes a lot of gall to decide to do what they do. You're stepping on glass shards for a living, and while it's profitable, it's certainly a gamble on your reputation that swings one way or another.

The better question here is: what do you think of negative lawyers or profitable ones who would do anything, even lie, to win a case? To those lawyers, I say tar and feathers, though only in a metaphorical context. There is a line that may be drawn there: if the judicial branch of our government is there to protect us with genuine justice, then why would it be applicable for a lie to be cast on the record to win a case? Or even a half truth? The hidden information, the clever slogans, and the senseless bribary. To the lawyers who bend on that? I hold little respect. It's backwards - and that is where I draw a disagreement with the questionable ethics of some lawyers. I really only have one case that makes me quirk a brow. Need I say more than: "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit?".

In that respect, you could simply say that I have a mixed opinion on lawyers. Judge a man by the content of his character and his cause. I think very little of the occupation in whole. They're a part of the judicial branch. There. That's what I think in more simple language. They're just another player on the judicial stage.