What do you think of the Supreme Court?

When I think of how unfair many things are in the world, I wonder to myself, “How can you fight back? How do you stand up for yourself in this society?” My mind brings me to the courts. But you need purchasing power to truly voice your opinion. That realization is a flaw in the system. When many people who need to utilize the courts, do not have the funds to do so, then things will not operate fairly. People will not be treated equally like our forefathers had envisioned. I think that the Supreme Court, like many other legal entities or systems, has the potential to be extremely beneficial or harmful to our society. To start, our legal system and laws are very complex and I believe it is impossible for one person alone to contain and contemplate the knowledge of law in its entirety. Also, our decisions of what we allow ourselves to do or restrict ourselves from doing when we first formulate our laws, can have unseen consequences. It is the job of the court to follow these concepts and ideas through to the end and to identify and work out conflicts in the system. The Supreme Court ends up being the composed super brain of our nation’s opinions so it should accurately represent our nation’s values and beliefs. Equality on the Supreme Court is something that I am currently in favor of, but I am not sure if it would work properly when taken to an extreme. There are only nine seats and how could you possibly mirror the American population into nine individuals? So far, we have had mostly older white males as Supreme Court Justices since the courts conception, which does not represent America’s population. Further down this train of thought, I come to the conclusion that a Supreme Court Justice gets the final say in this country. Their interpretation of our Constitution and Bill of Rights is what decides how our laws work together in the end. So if you really want to change things, you have to become a member of the Supreme Court. But you have to go to college, which requires a hefty amount of money. So basically, without money, you don’t get to be a Supreme Court Justice, and you don’t get to take all of your grievances to court to be examined under an un-biased eye as a citizen either. The concept of the final, tip-top mediator of the land is great when you are writing down the rules of the game, I mean, what sport doesn’t have a referee of some type? But what if there is something else that affects the purity of that referee? There are factors that change the way things are “supposed” to work. That is why we must thrive to have a Supreme Court that truly makes a fair decision based off of multiple perspectives.

7. Dissent

Island Trees v. Pico ended in a 5 to 4 decision in favor of the students. Justice Brennan announced the judgment of the court and stated his opinion which Justice Marshall, White and Stevens concurred, and they were joined by Blackmun who agreed with all but Part II A-1. Burger, Powell, Rehnquist and O' Connor dissented. O' Connor stated, "If the school board can set the curriculum, select teachers, and determine initially what books to purchase for the school library, it surely can decide which books to discontinue or remove from the school library so long as it does not also interfere with the right of students to read the material and to discuss it...I do not personally agree with the Board's action with respect to some of the books in question here, but it is not the function of the courts to make the decisions that have been properly relegated to the elected members of school boards. It is the school board that must determine educational suitability, and it has done so in this case. I therefore join THE CHIEF JUSTICE's dissent. " (http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/pico.html) Justice Rehnquist explained, "I disagree with JUSTICE BRENNAN's opinion because it is largely hypothetical in character, failing to take account of the facts as admitted by the parties pursuant to local rules of the District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and because it is analytically unsound and internally inconsistent...JUSTICE BRENNAN's opinion deals far more sparsely with the procedural posture of this case than it does with the constitutional issues which it conceives to arise under the First Amendment." (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=457&invol=853)

6. My Argument

This case at first glance seems that it did not need to go to the Supreme Court but the students persisted that the motivation was the Board's dissent of the ideas expressed. People are always going to be worried about government control and administrative agencies seeming to run their lives and I think it is beneficial to society for people to non-violently discuss their disagreements because it inspires education, cooperation and communication. The School Board already had a system in place to judge the content of its library and it is possible people would not have noticed the removal if it wasn't publicized in a local newspaper. Members of the Supreme Court who dissented with Justice Brennan saw the possible dangers of this decision and how the case may distort people's views of the Supreme Court's purpose. Are they meant to be the ultimate censor by judging if the motives of groups are interested in educational suitability? I don't believe so otherwise it would be a waste of time and that is why the precedent needed to be established. The First Amendment does not mention a right to receive ideas, merely a right to freely express your opinions and "inquire" information. Many of the books contained scenes that used small amounts of slang and racial slurs, or scenes that may be seen as somewhat sexually explicit and others were simply controversial in their opinions of founding fathers. In junior high and high schools, I believe that students and teachers should be able to discuss ideas from outside perspectives and examine more than just the story itself. They should promote learning who the author is and when he or she lived and what they experienced and how it affected who they were/are and why they would create the material. It should be a very deep, logical and open-minded environment. I understand that there is separation of church and state and people are protected from bombardment of religious, racist or atheist ideas in school but to prepare for college and life you need to be able to think critically. Focusing on small pieces only to better understand the totality of the idea and how it integrates into history, life and society. So it seems inevitable that the Supreme Court would become involved in a case like this, only to attempt to decide once and for all if this is how it should handle the outlet of information and knowledge in schools. But it also seems unnecessary and unusual that the Federal District Court sided with the School Board's flimsy motives and informal actions to remove the 9 books, 8 of which were optional reading after they had already unnecessarily upset the students enough (by ignoring their opinions) to take them to court.

5. Rule of Law

The Island Trees School Board has a special interest in providing an educationally suitable archive of reading material to their students and they already have regulations in place to decide which books to purchase and keep. The Superintendent stated, "We already have a policy . . . designed expressly to handle such problems. It calls for the Superintendent, upon receiving an objection to a book or books, to appoint a committee to study them and make recommendations. I feel it is a good policy -- and it is Board policy -- and that it should be followed in this instance. Furthermore, I think it can be followed quietly, and in such a way as to reduce, perhaps avoid, the public furor which has always attended such issues in the past." (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0457_0853_ZO.html) The Board removed the 9 books from the library, which has been done before at other schools when someone deems a book inappropriate for minors or a certain grade level, but the students who brought the case to court believed the school's motives were narrow minded and motivated by their disagreement with the ideas written. The Federal District Court in favor of the Board did not see the action as an infringement on First Amendment Rights. But 5 to 4 in the Supreme Court were in favor of the students and Justice Brennan mentioned a right to receive information and saw a limitation on that "right" in the case. They had concluded that, "The law requires that if a book is to be removed, an inquiry must be made to the motivation and intention of the party calling for its removal. If the party's intention is to deny students' access to ideas with which the party disagrees, it is a violation of the First Amendment." ( http://www.thencbla.org/BPOSpages/supremectcase.html) The concurring judges cited Tinker v. Des Moines School District (Pledge), Meyer v. Nebraska (teaching foreign language) and Epperson v. Arkansas (teaching evolution) along with a few other First Amendment cases as supporting precedents in this instance. But not all of the judges agreed.

4. Reasoning of the Court

To start from the beginning, the Island Trees School Board removed several books from the school library. This sort of action is justified by their purpose of organizing an open-minded and efficient educational system in their area. Supporting and acting through Pico, the students brought the school to federal district court. The federal district court had decided in favor of the Board. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the decision. The Board petitioned the Supreme Court. Supreme Court noticed the School Board had singled out a list of books which were not a part of the required curriculum. In the words of the court, "We can reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and grant petitioners' request for reinstatement of the summary judgment in their favor, only if we determine that 'there is no genuine issue as to any material fact,' and that petitioners are 'entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.'"
(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=457&invol=853)
Since it is not required reading, but optional reading done in the library, and because the board appears to be motivated by their disagreement with the ideas expressed, their actions may be perceived as the suppression of ideas. Justice Brennan believes that suppressing ideas in this manner goes against the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which is written..."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." (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about.aspx?item=about_firstamd) The Board of Education was trying to remove materials they considered racist and controversial. In the Supreme Court, the precedence from Tinker v. Des Moines was brought to attention by Justice Brennan that students don't "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech upon entering the schoolhouse gate."(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0457_0853_ZO.html) He also added, "In brief, we hold that local school boards may not remove books from school library shelves simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books..."(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=457&invol=853)
Marshall, Steven, Blackmun and White concurred with Brennan's decision while Burger, Powell, Rehnquist and O' Connor dissented. (http://oyez.com/cases/1980-1989/1981/1981_80_2043)
Blackmun, although agreeing with all parts except II A-1, wanted to specify his opinion of the First Amendment in this case stating, "I do not suggest that the State has any affirmative obligation to provide students with information or ideas, something that may well be associated with a 'right to receive.'...I do not believe, as the plurality suggests, that the right at issue here is somehow associated with the peculiar nature of the school library..." (http://www.tourolaw.edu/PATCH/Pico/)

3. Decision of the Court

The Island Trees School Board removed nine books from their school libraries and several students responded by challenging the Board's actions in court. In the Federal District Court, the Board won the case. The U.S. Court of Appeals reversed in the second circuit. The Supreme Court granted certiorari after a petition by the Board. In the end, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that the school boards violated the First Amendment and cannot remove books from junior and high school libraries that they disagree with or deem offensive. The Supreme Court had to decide whether or not the School Board's interest to regulate the content of their curriculum overpowered the constitutional right of the 1st Amendment. "Although school boards have a vested interest in promoting respect for social, moral, and political community values, their discretionary power is secondary to the transcendent imperatives of the First Amendment." (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1981/1981_80_2043) Here is a quote from Justice O'Connor of the Supreme Court concerning the School Board's powers. "If the school board can set the curriculum, select teachers, and determine initially what books to purchase for the school library, it surely can decide which books to discontinue or remove from the school library so long as it does not also interfere with the right of students to read the material and to discuss it." (http://www.faculty.piercelaw.edu/redfield/library/case-islandtrees.htm) The decision of this case is very important because the time spent during childhood education can be some of the most influential years of learning a human being will ever experience and I believe you should have access to all educational resources possible. Here is yet another quote from the Supreme Court supporting the First Amendment in the case. "Any word spoken, in class, in the lunchroom, or on the campus, that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance. But our Constitution says we must take this risk and our history says that it is this sort of hazardous freedom - this kind of openness - that is the basis of our national strength and of the independence and vigor of Americans who grow up and live in this . . . often disputatious society." (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=393&page=508#508) Justice Brennan added, taking precedence from West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion . . . . If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us." (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=457&invol=853)

Illicit

Intellectual property theft and illicit trade distorts the systematic way that our world works. Counterfeiting operations affect many different places and people in indirect ways. Knock offs can provide money to criminal syndicates through the networks that are created to move goods into and out of countries. The authorities are also well aware that if these illegitimate trade routes can move “non-dangerous” products without being detected, they are fully capable of moving human organs, guns, drugs, and possibly even more dangerous weaponry such as biological or nuclear components. Illicit trade also involves bribery on a mass scale which gradually corrupts entire countries of individuals into criminal lifestyles. People are neglected and used to sell and buy these synthetic materials which are often composed of harmful substances that can permanently damage your health or even kill you. The fact that the hundreds of people who died in Panama can be directly linked to counterfeit commerce in specific cities should say how dangerous this problem can really be. Those deaths were caused by the sale and dispersion of cheap, generic medication that is constantly being manufactured in the underground crime world. If there are people out there capable of sleeping at night when these deaths can be linked back to their actions, I’m sure their conscience won’t stop them from chasing after that few extra billion they could make in advanced weaponry. Not to mention, the opportunities that arise for mugging and identity theft of tourists and foreigners who plan on purchasing these items in bulk for their own monetary gain. It is obvious that these intelligent criminals are using the ignorance and desperation of others to meet their goals and it is sickening to see these operations flip justice systems on their head while completely ignoring the existence of moral law.

2. Issue of the Case

Board of Education, Island Trees School District V. Pico is a case that was brought to the Supreme Court because it raises the issue of how far a school board's power reaches before it is squelched by the First Amendment, freedom of speech. Does the First Amendment limit the board's actions to remove books from junior and senior high schools? If it does, how so? Many other cases were used as precedent for Island Trees v. Pico. Cases such as West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, which held the precedence that "students' liberty of conscience could not be infringed in the name of 'national unity' or 'patriotism'." (http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/pico.html) The West Virginia case was concerned primarily with the individual's right to participate or not participate in the pledge. But the case contains similar First Amendment disputes, so its precedence can provide information for how the law should work in Island Trees v. Pico. Justice William J. Brennan Jr.(writing for the court), also cited Tinker v. Des Moines School District saying that "high schoolers have First Amendment rights in the classroom." (http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/casesummary.asp) and Brennan also quoted the writings of James Madison, stating that "knowledge will forever govern ignorance: and a people who mean to be their own governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." (http://law.jrank.org/pages/12663/Island-Trees-Union-Free-School-District-Board-Education-v-Pico.html) Here is another statement written by Brennan himself concerning the case which displays the absurdity of the schools actions in a very logical way from a legal point of view. "While petitioners might rightfully claim absolute discretion in matters of curriculum by reliance upon their duty to inculcate community values in schools, petitioners' reliance upon that duty is misplaced, where they attempt to extend their claim of absolute discretion beyond the compulsory environment of the classroom into the school library and the regime of voluntary inquiry that there holds sway." (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=457&invol=853) It seems that if the board of education had only removed books which were a part of the school curriculum (and possibly in a more formal manner), they could have justified their actions in court by claiming it is their responsibility to provide education from materials that they first deem suitable for their students. But it seems that the existence of the First Amendment shows that the power of the school may not allow them to remove optional reading from the school libraries.

What's the problem with SPAM?

Spam is dangerous because it is often used by malicious people who have created false pretenses and exaggerated claims to slime their way towards your credit card numbers. It is an issue of computer privacy which typically involves spoofing (reproducing legitimate sites to fool users) and phishing (tricking individuals into disclosing private information). These crimes take place in cyberspace and can have a large impact on a person’s life. From a legal perspective, spam is dangerous because it is closely tied to crimes that corrupt the physical legal system as well as the workings of cyberspace. However, in 2004, the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pronography and Marketing Act (CAN-SPAM Act) was enacted; it is still a legally acceptable for a seller to advertise using electronic mail. The law states that commercial e-mail senders are barred from using misleading or bogus subject lines to conceal their origins (Essentials of Business Law, P.416, Luzio) but the law does not prevent solicitors from attempting to use Spam to illegally make a profit. Everyone is exposed to spam and it is seen as a part of the everyday virtual life. But in reality, you are just a few clicks away from identity theft.

1. Facts of the Case

Board of Education, Island Trees School District v. Pico (1982)

In February 1976, the Board of Education in New York removed nine books from the libraries of senior and junior high schools in the district. In the Board's opinion, the books were "anti-Christian, anti-American, anti-Semitic, or just plain filthy."(http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/casesummary.asp) The president of the board at the time, Richard Ahrens, had brought a list of "objectionable" books to a conference held by Parents of New York United. After the list was discussed, it was discovered that several of the books were in local school libraries. The Board had given an "unofficial direction" to remove the books in question. The action was made public, and they issued a statement as an attempted justification. They created a Book Review Committee composed of four Island Trees parents and four school staff members to read the books and decide whether or not they should be removed. To be justified in court, their areas of concern need to be comprised of "educational suitability", "good taste", "relevance", and "appropriateness to grade and age level". (http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/pico.html) Five different students sued the school district. (Steven Pico, Jacqueline Gold, Glenn Yarris, Russell Rieger, and Paul Sochinski) Four from high schools and one from a junior high school that claimed the action violated the First Amendment. Although there have been previous cases involving the First Amendment and its effects on education, (West Virginia Board of Education V. Barnette, Tinker v. Des Moines School District) this one is different because it does not involve textbooks and it questions more about "rights" to receive information than freely expressing oneself on school grounds.

What are your rights as a property owner?

Everything about rights in our modern society starts off simple (life, liberty, property) but quickly evolves into an intricate mess of overlapping social systems. The rights of a property owner are basically the rights of a person who has a deed. This sounds easy enough, but adds a whole new mess to the equation. Being a person that has never owned a property, I cannot say with confidence that I am aware of a property owner’s rights. But I would assume that if you are legally recognized as the holder of the deed, that you are given total control over the land and what happens to it as well as who may use it. You also must assume responsibility for certain aspects of the property that may be in violation of any administrative agencies or the city. There are rules and laws that you need to abide by and if you attempt to go against them you will have a harder time dealing with your day-to-day life, or possibly your landlord career. In Pacific Heights, the landlords became emotionally involved before completely examining the situation. Having a basic knowledge of the law, (or friends who do) is very crucial to avoid being screwed over by a combination of your own ignorance and other people’s malicious actions.

What My Classmates Think of the Legal System

“Because of the system of checks and balances, I believe that our legal system is great in doing the purpose it was created for.” (Ray Price http://bigdawgwebpages.blogspot.com/)

Ray’s statement concerning the checks and balances of our legal system, conflicts with my opinion because I believe that the ability to morally enforce actions in our society, is plagued by corruption and power abuse. I have to agree that it may be one of the best systems the world has to offer, but it runs much more smoothly on paper than it does in reality.

“Our legal system is very tricky and it tends to play with our emotions. It will make us feel protected until we really need it. Then sure enough, they’ll go and stab us right in the back.” ( Jaqueline Hernandez http://fashionvsstyle-jackie.blogspot.com/ )

I would have to agree with Jaqueline’s statement because it isn’t enough to just study the law in the books. You have to observe reality and see the flaws and the issues that arise because of the limitations that our legal system places upon some areas (1000 page health care bills), but not on others (The Patriot Act).

“In order to defend yourself in a court of law, you have to know all the ins and outs and loop holes there are or to get a good lawyer.” (Matthew James Gonzalez http://mjgproduction.blogspot.com/ )

This quote from Matthew is a great example of how tough and to the book our system will be when it comes to different classes of purchasing power. But when it comes to a senator or a secretary of state violating a statute, it becomes a mockery as our entire country fills to the brim with biased propaganda and distortion that most likely comes from a friend of a friend who owns Fox News.

Week 4 EOC Used Cars Crimes & Torts

Group Members: George Teh, David Thomas, Ryan Edwards

1. Trade Libel- Tampering with video - crime
2. False Advertising- “mile of cars”- crime
3. Illegal gambling on footall game- Crime
4. Vandalism, property in bar; salt mirror; umbrellas- crime
5. Perjury, woman lies in court- crime
6. Illegal drugs mentioned at car lot- crime
7. Stolen vehicles- crime
8. Underage drivers- crime
9. No driver’s license for students- crime
10. No seatbelts- crime
11. Sexual harassment at the lot on the woman- tort
12. Speeding- crime
13. Reckless driving- crime
14. Running from the police at the car wreck scene- crime
15. Drinking on the job with other car lot owners- tort
16. Assault with deadly weapon- gun during car chase and chains
17. Battery at the bar- crime

What I Think of the Legal System

There are times when I think of the law and it seems to be nothing but a hindrance to the way most of us live our lives. But from the other perspective, it is not that your freedom is squelched by the law, but your privileges are protected by it. We give up rights to the government so that we can be protected from each other and ourselves. There was a time where the only existing laws came about naturally and symbiotically in the chaos of the universe through the relationships of all types of matter. “Since earliest times, people have recognized that they are to a certain extent responsible for one another and have obligations to one another beyond those required by the law.” (Essentials of Business Law, Liuzzo, P. 8) But in today’s modern world, the complexity of laws on city, state, and federal levels can be an enormous burden to the ignorant. Almost every day, I see or hear of a situation where someone obliviously wandered into a web of contracts and constricting laws by not having an appropriate amount of knowledge that would have better prepared them for such an incident. I think that the law is only as good as the people who acknowledge and enforce it. The spontaneous and morally grey nature (or nurture) of today’s society causes me to see the law as an immovable, massive system of documents created by millions of different opinions and feelings. In the end, I feel that I won’t ever have much of an effect on the way things are run in the world, but I also feel that freedom comes from inside yourself and cannot be given to you by anyone. It is a feeling or a mentality that can only come from within.

Myspace Hoax Week 2

Cyber bullying, this is the term the media put hand-in-hand with the court case of Lori Drew, a woman from Missouri who decided to create a fake MySpace account, which ended in 13 year-old Megan Meier’s suicide. Although suicide was an indirect result, Drew was only convicted of three misdemeanor counts of unauthorized access to computers. Writing false information for public view can have unseen consequences, as demonstrated in this case. It is similar to the film Absence of Malice, because the reporter from the movie, and Drew from the court case, utilized and printed information that was not true. This ultimately led to a suicide in both instances. In the case of Drew, she obviously was making an attempt to emotionally disrupt Megan Meier, which is, by definition a tort. It was a private wrong directed at her well-being. In the film, Gallagher is defamed by a reporter, who is unknowingly aiding a team of investigators in their search for information on a completely different topic. This is also a tort since it involves defamation and may be considered a private wrong. The difference between Drew and the reporter in the film, although they both are roots of false information and instigators of torts, is that Drew was committing a tort with a malicious motive. Since the printing company had no malicious motive, the lawyer concluded that they could release the story without fear of some type of counter action from Gallagher. The repercussions of these laws in conjunction with one another are huge. Although Drew indirectly caused a suicide, which sounds like it could be considered third degree murder, she was acquitted of all felony conspiracy charges and claimed that she only intended to see what Megan was saying about her daughter. How often is law illogical?

What do you think of lawyers?

What do I think of lawyers? Well I have to start by tearing down the word itself. The substance lays in that little three letter word: law. Lawyers are supposed to be law professionals. They work for society, taking payments to defend or attack your position, whatever it may be, in the courtroom. Just like any other person, regardless of the label, we all have different values and beliefs. We don’t all listen to the same conscience, so we aren’t going to the feel the same way about a particular situation. Now, the actual motives of the lawyers come into play. If you hire a lawyer for a case, are they motivated by ethical concerns, or are they being motivated financially? This is the question I would ask myself if I had to go to court for some reason. The only time I can vividly recall talking to a lawyer face to face, was when I went with a friend who was in a car accident. While waiting at a red light, a semi truck belonging to a construction company plowed into the back of the automobile. Looking at the case, you could probably predict the outcome. So I went with her to the company building. The inside reminded me of Tony Montana’s house from the film, Scarface. Inside I saw a symbolic liberty statue that must have been worth at least five thousand dollars. Getting to the lawyer himself… His hair was probably synthetic; his suit looked as if it cost more than everything in my closet. But what I remember most of all, was his nasty, dirty, rotten looking tooth. Looking back now, he was lucky to get a case where the ethics and the money are flowing one way. Otherwise he has to act a bit too!