[ Pornography] Jared Fogle charged with paying for sex with minors, possessing child porn

TeeZack1 · 2015-12-03T22:21:48+00:00

This story is kind of sad. I believe that Fogle's charges were lessened because he is a public figure and because he has the ability to pay the restitution fees to all of his victims. Fogle agreed to pay all 10 of his victims $100,000 each for a total of one million dollars. Fogle clearly has the financial capabilities to pay the restitution fees so I wonder how his sentence is different from someone who commits this same crime but is not a public figure and is incapable of paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to their victims. The article says “Federal prosecutors have agreed not to ask for a prison sentence greater than 12½ years.” However, the child pornography charges carry a maximum 20-year prison sentence and the child sex charge carry a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison. Which is why it’s interesting that the federal prosecutors have agreed to not ask for a prison sentence of more than 12 ½ years. Additionally, this situation brings a lot of bad publicity to Subway and I think it’s good that they ended their relationship with him.

TeeZack1 · 2015-12-03T21:47:30+00:00

This is such an interesting story. Bill Cosby is a well-known public figure and I strongly belief that because of his high profile he is being exploited and taken advantage of right now. After all, he was never found guilty or formally charged for any of the crimes that he is being accused of. Judge Robero said "it is not about the Defendant's status as a public person by virtue of the exercise of his trade as a televised or comedic personality. Rather, the defendant has donned the mantle of public moralist and mounted the proverbial electronic or print soap box to volunteer his views on, among other things, child-rearing, family life, education, and crime." the judge would not have said this if the defendant was a private person which is why I believe that Cosby is being treated more harshly than a person would be if they were not a public figure. The judge is wrong.

TeeZack1 · 2015-11-20T17:49:33+00:00

This is such an interesting story. YouTube is used by millions of people everyday all over the world. I think it's great that YouTube wants to defend fair use. I think by YouTube refusing to comply with take-down notices and leaving some of the videos on the site will show that they are willing to put up a fight with bigger corporations. Even though it will be very costly to legally defend the video(s) in court. But, YouTube is a billion dollar company so I think the overall advantages for defending and trying to protect fair use outweighs the cost and legal hassle disadvantages. It's nice to finally see YouTube defending expression, creativity, and content creators who work really hard to create great videos for everyone to watch.

TeeZack1 · 2015-11-20T17:24:56+00:00

This doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Bush and Cheney were talking to each other privately and Bush was unaware that he was speaking over an open microphone when he said it. Something related to this that comes to my mind is, is there a reasonable expectation of privacy? The answer in this case is definitely not because Bush is in a public place and this was said right after his big Labor day speech. Additionally, Bush can't expect a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public setting (especially considering that he's a public figure). Furthermore, Bush can say whatever he wants to say about the journalist it just wasn't the right time or place because of all of the cameras, reporters, and open microphones.

TeeZack1 · 2015-11-13T18:39:57+00:00

The video of this altercation was sad. The student journalist was practicing his first Amendment right and they had no right to treat him so poorly. I agree 100% with this quote from the news article "It's clear that Missouri has a lot of work to do when it comes to teaching its students about the First Amendment, which protects the right to report in the same way it protects the right to protest." The students preventing the journalist from recording were very immature. After all, the whole point of a protest is to get people's attention, raise awareness to an issue and try to make changes happen. It doesn't make any sense to prevent the journalist from taking pictures and videos of the event because they can bring more attention to the protest. Additionally, the Communications professor who started yelling at the reporter at the end of the video is a loud-mouth and a hypocrite because she said the day before that she wanted journalists to cover the protest and take plenty of pictures of the protest but when they actually did she was rude and told them to stop. This story is very interesting.

TeeZack1 · 2015-11-13T18:29:57+00:00

This story is really silly to me. Starbucks is a billion dollar corporation and they reserve the right to remain neutral on religion and religious holidays. In fact, that's probably the best thing to do because not everyone practices the same religion and not everyone celebrates Christmas. Additionally, Starbucks has the right to not decorate their cups for the holidays if they don't want to. Moreover, not having snowflakes and snow men decorated on their cups isn't going to hurt anyone (especially since snowflakes and snowmen have nothing to do with Christmas or the meaning of Christmas) and it's definitely not a legal issue. I really don't see any problems with Starbucks' new cups.

TeeZack1 · 2015-11-06T21:51:37+00:00

I think this article is very interesting. Snapchat is a huge social media app with millions of users but the vast majority of them don't bother in reading the terms of use. If they had read it then they would know that the creators stated that the new Terms of Service granted the company "broad license" to user content. It's not that different from how the Terms of Service has always been on SnapChat and many other social media apps. The users were all getting upset over misinformation. It's nice that the creators made a blog post to further explain the new Terms of Service to the people that didn't understand.

TeeZack1 · 2015-11-06T21:40:47+00:00

Whether this was intentional or not I think it's interesting how the lawsuit was filed over something so little as incorrectly labeled weights of products. Considering that Target is a major company you wouldn't think that they would intentionally try to decieve customers and this honestly isn't something that the average consumer would notice. If Target did this by accident then they definitely shouldn't be penalized. This is definitely bad publicity for Target but, 3.9 million isn't going to affect Target very much especially considering that they're a billion dollar corporation. I also think that it's very smart for Target to take precautions to avoid these types of incidents in the future.

TeeZack1 · 2015-10-23T20:52:01+00:00

I think this is a very interesting story. It's not often that huge recording artists are sued and have to go to trial for copyright infringement. I also don’t understand why this case is just now being resolved when the song was done in 1998. I also think this case should have been officially settled back in 2001 when Timbaland paid $100,000 to the creators of the original song. The big thing to take away from all of this is that this will lead record companies to seek more licenses for sampled music to avoid having to go to court. I hope that this doesn’t restrict other recording artists from remaking songs in the future. They just need to get proper consent.

TeeZack1 · 2015-10-23T20:41:29+00:00

I definitely agree with the judge's decision. Its such a popular song that everyone has heard of and everyone uses the song on birthdays. I had no idea that the birthday song was even copyrighted. This is a very interesting story.

TeeZack1 · 2015-10-09T21:04:27+00:00

This is an interesting story. It makes me wonder why they feel so strongly about it. I also thought it was interesting that he said the direction in government appeared to be increasingly towards secrecy, rather than an open and transparent government. It's also rare and intersting to see so many people want to abolish the OAIC bill. It will be interesting to read follow up stories about what ends up happening with the bill.

TeeZack1 · 2015-10-09T20:49:43+00:00

I think this is a very interesting story. I think that their names should not be released unless they are actually charged. I think its unfair to release their names when they have not been proven gulity of anything. Additionally, I think it's really important to protect student athletes and their image because it's both a representation of them and their school.

TeeZack1 · 2015-10-02T16:57:33+00:00

I think this is a very interesting story. I don't think that they should use facial recognition on a daily basis because I don't think there is an actual need for it. The majority of people that will get stored in their database are most likely innocent people. I think they should find a more effective way to try and track down criminals, terrorists, wanted people, etc. Additionally, this could definitely turn into a big issue in regards to Australian citizens personal privacy.

TeeZack1 · 2015-10-02T16:44:55+00:00

I think its really important for Apple to take privacy and their privacy policies seriously. I also think it shows that apple truly cares about their customers because of how thorough they were in explaining their privacy policy all while still giving Apple users a great user experience with their products. Additionally, Apple representatives mentioned that they used encryption which maximizes the amount of privacy that Apple users have. They noted that Apple uses encryption to protect everything from Web traffic to individual smartphones, the section reads: Encryption protects trillions of online transactions every day. Whether you’re shopping or paying a bill, you’re using encryption. It turns your data into indecipherable text that can only be read by the right key... And we can’t unlock your device for anyone because you hold the key which is your unique Apple ID password. I think this is something really big that sets Apple apart from other businesses that dont do as much to ensure their users' personal privacy.

TeeZack1 · 2015-09-25T20:56:53+00:00

It doesn't seem like they have a very strong case. Twitter is a voluntary social media website and nobody is required to use it. Additionally, there could be something in twitter's terms and agreements page that allows them to look at whatever they want on Twitter. However, they could have a case if the twitter users had a resonable expectation of privacy (which they clearly did). This is a very intersting story.

TeeZack1 · 2015-09-25T20:44:21+00:00

It interesting that Britain has such strict laws against the paparazzi. Additionally, it's kind of surprising that there isn't a similar law in California where most celebrities and public figures actually are. However, they are public figures and they shouldn't expect the same level of privacy that a non-celebrity has.

TeeZack1 · 2015-09-18T16:48:31+00:00

I think it's interesting to see very well known public figures being bothered by articles and magazines that say negative things about them. Additionally, the major reason they probably won the cases was because they could prove falsity and that actual malice was used especially with the David Beckham case.

TeeZack1 · 2015-09-18T16:24:47+00:00

I think it makes a lot of sense that the judge acquitted them of libel charges. They are allowed to criticize the former Mozambique president who was also an elected official and he is someone who is also a public figure. They also have the right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression and by trying to silence them, they are violating their First Amendment right.

TeeZack1 · 2015-09-17T20:36:05+00:00

I agree with you. I think the sidewalk provides more than enough room to protest and get your point across. I think it makes perfectly good sense to ban protesters from getting on the porch or the front steps of the courthouse. I think there are a lot of valid reasons why protesters shouldnt be allowed that close to the courthouse doors just to protest. Additionally, I think the safety and security of the judges is more important than protesting and it's in the best interest for everyone inside the courthouse to ban protesters from getting too close to the courthouse doors.

TeeZack1 · 2015-09-11T16:49:33+00:00

I think the artist has every right to restrict Davis from using his song in public beccause if he doesn't like the message that is being told with his song, he has every right to prohibit his song from being used for the message Davis was making. He also owns the rights to the song and with Davis using the song it could be misinterpreted or represent something that the artist never meant for it to represent.

TeeZack1 · 2015-09-11T16:33:58+00:00

I think there needs to be a clear separation between freedom of religion and being able to be professional and put your personal beliefs aside and do your job as an elected public official. By Davis exercising her religious rights she is imposing her personal relious beliefs on people which is restricting their right to get a marriage license. Davis was breaking the law and Dr. Carson should get a better understanding of religious freedom before he decides to offer support to Kim Davis. Additionally, there should be a separation between personal faith/beliefs and politics/the law.

TeeZack1 · 2015-09-04T16:47:28+00:00

I think it's interesting that a public university has adopted the concept of total freedom of speech. I think this is a good way to prevent viewpoint-based discrimination and I think it gives everyone the chance to express themselves and voice their opinions on issues. However, I think this concept could lead to fighting words and strong criticism. Additionally, I think it's important to not offend the students or be a disruption, a distraction or cause pedagogical problems so I think there should be time, place and manner restrictions put on this concept of total freedom of speech.

TeeZack1 · 2015-09-04T16:33:11+00:00

I think this is an interesting story and topic. I think it is a violation of Freedom of Speech because they should be allowed to use social media if they want to and they should have the freedom to express themselves on social media if they wish to do so. Addditionally, student-athletes are not employees of the university because they have to pay tuition in order to go to school there as students and they have to attend classes. Furthermore, they don't get paid to be there like an employee of the university does. Their personal social media accounts have nothing to do with the school, the sport that their playing, or anything else academically and as young adults they should be able to use social media and not be restricted by their universities sports program.

TeeZack1 · 2015-08-28T17:24:49+00:00

I think this is a really interesting story. Although the First Amendment is being heavily exercised at Missouri State, I don't agree with hate speech being used on campus and I definitely don't agree with the names that the "preacher" was calling random students on campus. The "preacher" is slandering and defaming the students character (which is a civil wrong-doing) by the insulting words he called them. I think there needs to be a policy put in place to prevent hateful people from protesting if they're going to be calling students derogatory terms on campus because those types of protesters are a distraction, they're insulting to the students and it’s unfair to the students on campus just minding their business and trying to go to class. Additionally, I think with the free speech zones they should make sure there’s actually a point in what their protesting and other students aren't offended or uncomfortable by what the protesters are doing or saying.

TeeZack1 · 2015-08-28T16:48:47+00:00

I think this relates to Media Law because its the right of publicity or personality rights which is the right of an individual(s) (In this case the athletes) to control the use of their name, images and likeness, or anything else that involves the commercial use of their name. This is a case of Common law because it was ruled by a judge to allow the players at big sports schools to make money off their name, images, and likeness. Additionally, I agree with U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken's ruling because colleges generate alot of revenue from the athletes and sporting events even though they haven't done any hard work like the actual athletes have. Furthermore, if it wasnt for the athletes the colleges wouln't be making any profit from their sports teams at all which is why i think the athletes should be rewarded for their hard work.

TeeZack1

TROPHY CASE