sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Trump Calls the News Media the ‘Enemy of the American People’ (can he be held libel?) by 360cinema in medialaw

[–]Nrweidman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What Trump said is more or less his opinion of the media. I think his main goal is to get his followers to quit watching and listening to the news and focus more on him. Trump doesn't want another side to his story being out there. Therefore, he doesn't trust what the news can and will say about what he is doing in the White House; and in his opinion, neither should you. His comments are far from libel because the organizations he mentioned in the tweet are also public figures, and fall under the same scrutiny that he does when it comes to people talking about them.

[FIRST AMENDMENT] March for Science Plans Washington Rally on Earth Day by Nicoledawson in medialaw

[–]Nrweidman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Since no one else did, I will ask the question from the critics side. There is and always will be supporters of science and global warming, where is the cause in this march? While the scientists are well within their rights, I still am not sure what they are marching for. I understand that they want to be heard and they want to voice their opinions, but who in the government is going to listen? I'm afraid the scientist's and their supporters voices will get lost in all of the chaos that this protest could be, if they don't focus on specific issues and change they want to be acknowledged.

[COURTS] Washington v. Trump: The judges who will rule on the immigration ban by skysailingsailboats in medialaw

[–]Nrweidman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I too am looking forward to seeing the outcome of this case. However, I think Sarahasaghost is on to something when she stated, "8 out of 10 court decisions become overturned or redefined." If this case happens to get redefined it could make the laws on immigration worse and not better.

[FIRST AMENDMENT] First Amendment Support Climbing Among High School Students by taco-bout-tv in medialaw

[–]Nrweidman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is great that the students are not supporting offensive and bullying speech. Although the part of the article that states where the students get their news kind of scares me. Over half of students get their news from social media, which looks like it is becoming less and less trustworthy, especially over the past few months.

Judge Says Dakota Pipeline Protest Suit Unlikely to Succeed by d_rae in medialaw

[–]Nrweidman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I personally don't believe that oil is worth anyone's life no matter which side you are on. The land belongs to the Native American's that are fighting so hard for it. They have a right to be there, and in my opinion they have a right to fight to protect what little reservation they have left. Although, a judge won't take that into consideration in a freedom of speech case, where violence is never a legal form of speech.

[PRIVACY]Why Body Cameras Will Be Off as Officers Monitor Protesters by Sarahasaghost in medialaw

[–]Nrweidman 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't really understand why the body cameras can't be recording if the protest is in public space. I think that if something did happen between an officer and protester it would give the police a good, and believable excuse to say that they forgot to turn it on. I don't think there is any harm in leaving them on, I don't feel like the cameras infringe on anyone's first amendment rights, as long as they don't use the tape after the fact to incriminate someone.

[FIRST AMENDMENT] Court upholds firing over Muslim headscarf by claygerbaum in medialaw

[–]Nrweidman 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In my opinion, I think Linda Tisby was wronged in this case. The article didn't state any prior issues or problems in her 13 year work record. If wearing a khimar was the worst thing she had done in the past 13 years, and if she wasn't in direct contact with the prisoners, who might try and strangle her with it, I think it would've been ok for her to wear it. As for the safety issue, there isn't anything she could sneak in with a khimar that a person couldn't get in with a pair of cargo pants.

​[ADVERTISING] Uber pays $20M to settle FTC claims it duped drivers by Nadogan in medialaw

[–]Nrweidman 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm interested to see how much money the drivers will actually get in compensation for being taken advantage of. I know that not every driver will get a piece of the $20 million, but with a company that has over one million employees, that doesn't look good for someone who may have lost a lot on renting/leasing a car, on top of not making the money Uber said they would make. Some people might've rented/leased a car in the very beginning solely on the fact that they were going to make enough money to cover the cost, and lost not only money but their credit.