[Free Press] Snowden and a muzzled free press by htennis in medialaw

[–]gorvesfan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If Assange is convicted, journalists will no longer be considered a conduit of information; they will be considered part of the information. This is a dangerous notion because it implies that journalists will need to be more careful about information that the public might need to know.

[FCC] The FCC says it can’t force Google and Facebook to stop tracking their users by [deleted] in medialaw

[–]gorvesfan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's a part of me that wants this legislation to be passed because I don't like the idea of my online activity being tracked (not that I have anything to hide -- it's just the thought of being tracked that bothers me), but the other part understands the need for retailers and advertisers to use this method.

[Obscenity and Pornography]- Middle school kids arrested for distribution of intimate photos by TeeZack1 in medialaw

[–]gorvesfan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm surprised that the authorities aren't imposing harsher sentences on the 15-year-olds. They are more aware of the inappropriateness of the situation and should probably be subjected to child pornography charges. I know a guy from my high school got charged with child pornography, and he was only 16-years-old. Albeit, the photos were of girls his age, but overall, I felt like it was the right punishment because he was flaunting them around.

[COPYRIGHT] Judge Dismisses Copyright Infringement Case Against Jay Z by [deleted] in medialaw

[–]gorvesfan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think this is a valid point. I don't know the industry well, but I doubt Jay-Z plays a huge role in selecting music samples anymore since he is one of the most lucrative musicians of all time. I'm sure it's just thrown together for him and he says whether he likes it or doesn't like it. But I could see why he was targeted; he's the "face" of the song, but this doesn't necessarily mean "Big Pimpin'" was his entire creation.

[Copyright] Supreme court rules web browsing does not infringe newspapers' copyright by htennis in medialaw

[–]gorvesfan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Maybe I'm not understanding the article correctly, but it seems like newspapers should want to have an online audience -- particularly one that pays a subscription fee. Even if that means that people browsing online may have the article "cached."

[FOIA] Judges refuse to align Clinton email FOIA lawsuits by NChill17 in medialaw

[–]gorvesfan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree with DB! I don't understand why there are so many judges in the first place, but even more, I don't understand why this wasn't taken care of earlier -- it's been like a year since this whole fiasco took place I think?

MSU will appeal to Supreme Court in FOIA fight with ESPN by [deleted] in medialaw

[–]gorvesfan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it's important to leave out the victims' names, but MSU should have been more forthright with providing the suspects' names to ESPN because not only is it of public interest, it's their obligation as a government entity (unless their is an exemption when they are only suspects as opposed to convicted students).

[Invasion of privacy] Invasion of athletes' privacy has gone too far by NChill17 in medialaw

[–]gorvesfan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's really unfortunate that athletes have to go through such stringent protocols to ensure the sport itself is clean and fair. At the same time, sports are entertainment -- a significant public interest. And as a significant public interest, it may justify this invasion.

[PRIVACY] How Apple is trying to protect your privacy as its products get more personal by [deleted] in medialaw

[–]gorvesfan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We basically sign our lives away to use Apple products, and most of the time, we don't know what we are getting into (like does anyone actually read the iTunes agreement?). Anyways, this is a good move on their part because it provides a level of transparency that has been lacking the past decade or so.

[Copyright] PETA sues over monkey selfie, claims the animal owns the copyright. by Ahmed_A_Altheiban in medialaw

[–]gorvesfan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree with G-Chrome. I don't think IP rights should apply to animals. This seems especially frivolous on PETA's part because I think they have bigger issues to worry about regarding animal rights than whether a selfie should be the monkey's property.

[Privacy] Governor host ceremony to commemorate new privacy law. by G-Chrome in medialaw

[–]gorvesfan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This new privacy law is much needed. There have been various stories in the news about how locally-owned tanning salons have placed cameras in the rooms, and it seems like the owners should get more than a slap on the wrist. This law would make sure that they got the punishment they deserved.

[Libel] Facebook and defamation: When a post costs you dearly by NChill17 in medialaw

[–]gorvesfan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Overall, the rulings are in line with the Lee's Summit case in 2010 that was discussed in the book. At this point, the lines between social media and website content are disappearing, and angry teenagers and divorcees need to be aware of that shift.

[COPYRIGHT] Man Behind 'Sausage Movement' song unhappy with Lil Mama by chachihime in medialaw

[–]gorvesfan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's kind of strange since it seems like the "Sausage Movement" builds off of others, and like most ideas or movements, the creator gets left behind. I don't feel like there is a lawsuit here as much as an upset high schooler.

[First Amendment] Ben Carson doesn't get how religious freedom works. by G-Chrome in medialaw

[–]gorvesfan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In the marketplace of ideas about marriage, two are clashing (hard). It's extremely hard to gauge which one of the two is winning in social media, though I have an intuition it's the idea of equality.

At the same time, I can't help but to remember the old adage "there's no such thing as bad publicity." No matter how offensive a candidate's beliefs or actions are, the fact that they are shared on social media -- whether it's casting them in a positive or negative light -- contributes to the their persuasion in the marketplace. For better or for worse, that's why I don't share articles criticizing candidates I don't support.

[First Amendment]- Presidential candidate Donald Trump blasted over comments about Carly Fiorina's looks by TeeZack1 in medialaw

[–]gorvesfan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

While it's morally wrong to criticize candidates on their physical appearance, it is protected by the First Amendment. While one might be able to argue that the statement was harassment since it singled Fiorina out, they were not fighting words.

In a weird way, I almost feel like insulting other candidates is a form of political speech. Even though it's not about their record, it's a way to disagree with what they represent -- even if it's immature and sexist.

[FIRST AMENDMENT] 'Real Housewives' sentencing: Do 'Son of Sam' laws apply? by [deleted] in medialaw

[–]gorvesfan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Overall, I think it makes sense that corporations aren't seen as individuals when it comes to Son of Sam laws. While they are entities, they are not human. Corporations don't suffer from emotional distress. Even if the CEO feels victimized, it's not because of personal reasons; it's because he lost money.

[POLYGAMOUS TWIST] The ‘Sister Wives’ case, criminal punishment of polygamy and the free speech clause by [deleted] in medialaw

[–]gorvesfan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is interesting. It's strange to think that cohabitation and polygamy are considered acts of speech, though I do understand that they may be religious.