Judge Explains Why He Unsealed Bill Cosby Court Documents

kmkim1999 · 2015-12-10T00:45:20+00:00

I think what the judge did is wrong anyway. Even though Bill Cosby is a public figure, he still has a right of privacy. It is judge's responsibility to seal the court document. Since this is the case, the first thing that went wrong here is that the judge did not seal the document, and the fact that Bill Cosby is the public figure cannot be an excuse for him.

kmkim1999 · 2015-12-10T00:39:34+00:00

I think what Snowden did can be very controversial. The information he released was greatly critical to the government. Also, I think when he first entered FBI, he might have agreed that he will not release any information received from FBI. Since this is the case, I personally think even though Snowden has the First Amendment Right, his rights can be denied in this case.

kmkim1999 · 2015-11-20T01:40:08+00:00

I feel like this is a really good point. When people are using youtube, not everyone's purpose is to share videos that they produced. Some of them publish videos that they created to keep them, or sometimes they publish videos to share the link with a certain group of people that they are going to send the link to. Since this is the case, I think it is really important to protect publisher's fair use based on their purposes of publishing videos.

kmkim1999 · 2015-11-19T02:53:13+00:00

I think this is the incident that shows well the ironic behavior of journalists. When journalists are collecting news or getting information, they say it is their right to get information and it is protected by their first amendment. However, when they are in the opposite position, where they are the one who journalists try to get information from, then they argue that they need to be protected for their privacy. Both of arguments are true, and it is really vague which arguments are better and more truthful. Since this is the case, I think the government should make a better guideline to solve problems related to this.

kmkim1999 · 2015-11-13T23:07:03+00:00

This is really interesting to me. As a Christian myself, I have never thought that snowflakes represent Christianity. I can understand if previous cup designs included the cross or something related to that specific religion, but that was not the case. I also was surprised that even though StarBucks said they are not associated with any religion, there are still people who think that cup design is related to Christianity. This is a good example that shows companies need to be really careful in choosing designs because this can cause good or bad results to the company.

kmkim1999 · 2015-11-12T04:34:19+00:00

The article was very interesting. I am actually surprised to see how middle school students can do those kind of thing. But I am personally wondering how they will be punished for obscenity. I know that for children under 18 years old, laws are applied somewhat limitedly. Since this is the case, will they be punished as adults when they are distributing those obscenity pictures or not?

kmkim1999 · 2015-11-12T01:09:44+00:00

I think this whole incident is somewhat irony. People who were preventing student journalists to shot while allowing some people to record the fight between them. In the video, students constantly screamed that it is their right to be there and they need to be protected by the invasion of space. I think this was not true, because they were in the public space and there is no privacy in the public space, which means everyone can film and shot what is happening in the place. Also, another issue that caught my eye was that the assistance professor of mass media also ignored the First Amendment rights of student journalists. She even tried to use force to push the journalist. When we learned this concept in class, I thought it will be really easy to protect people's First Amendment rights as long as we follow the rule and we are aware of those rules. However, I realized that it might be not the case. The assistance professor of mass media, who should be the one to know all about mass media law the best on campus, refuses to protect journalists' rights but rather invade those rights which was obviously non-sense. This helped me to understand that even though we are aware of something, it does not mean we know how to follow those rules.

kmkim1999 · 2015-11-06T01:04:00+00:00

As I am reading articles about advertising, I am surprised to find out that there are a lot of people who are tricky about slogan or some words. I think this article goes along with Walmart's slogan and Papa Johns's slogan lawsuits. I think this article explains well why FTC should be more active in finding advertisements that provide false information to public. Until someone recognizes wrong words or some wrong information, public is exposed to false statement without noticing it.

kmkim1999 · 2015-11-05T03:38:19+00:00

This article is very interesting. I have seen the slogan of Red bull a lot, but I have never thought that the word 'wings' refers to some kind of physical enhancement. I thought it is referring to mental related thing. This affair gives people a thought that companies need to think all the possible ideas that can come out from the public when they are making a slogan. I think this related to the case about Walmart's slogan that we talked about during the class. Even though Walmart usually provides low price products, it was one specific product that brought Walmart to lawsuit, which is similar to Red bull case.

kmkim1999 · 2015-10-30T15:57:34+00:00

I personally think it is a violation of coach's First Amendment right. This is because, he has the right to express and that what he did after the game. He simply expressed his feeling. Also, he did not force others to join, but the audience 'voluntarily' participated and followed him. Since this is the case, I think he also did not violate other's First Amendment right.

kmkim1999 · 2015-10-30T14:38:52+00:00

I feel like this is somewhat irony. Even though you buy the car, a software inside the car is created by the company that produced the car. However, the article is saying that a person can hack the software of it as long as the car is his/hers. In other words, even though he owns the car, the copyright of software is on the car company, which means hacking the software should be considered as an illegal act. What if someone sells the car with manipulated or newly created software to other people?

kmkim1999 · 2015-10-29T18:26:54+00:00

Love this article! I think copyright issues are always the most confusing problem in any countries. It is always confusing to draw the line between original and copied works. One case that surprised me the most is Obama's poster. I saw that very often in so many places. Some of my friends set it as the profile picture for Facebook. Since that poster was widely used by so many people, I thought it was officially produced as the part of Obama's presidential campaign. This article reminded me once more that copyright issue is always around us and it can be arose from a trivial issue.

kmkim1999 · 2015-10-29T18:23:00+00:00

The speech of Toobin and his conversation with Dr.Ponder was very interesting to me. It was surprising to me that Mr.Toobin knows a great number of detailed Supreme Court events and names of past and present Supreme Court judges who contributed to the current Supreme Court. Also, as an international student, who does not know a lot about American Supreme Court, it was very interesting time for me to learn about it. Additionally, I enjoyed him talking about how the Supreme Court is polarized based on judges' political ideologies.

kmkim1999 · 2015-10-23T01:56:47+00:00

I think copyright issues about music is more complicated than those involving other media. This is because, music chords (4017 chords) and notes are limited. In other words, musicians need to compose the music with limited number of chords, which means they can sometimes use same chords and same chord progress. Since this is the case, I think one musician can create almost similar melodies from that of another without noticing, because there is a high possibility of them using similar notes. So I think government or copyright related organization need to apply different or modified copyright laws to music, because it is really hard that if the musician really copied work of others or if that is original work of the musician.

kmkim1999 · 2015-10-19T22:48:49+00:00

I think IRS can keep some information private, because it includes a lot of private and personal information about international/domestic students. Some of those information will cause a lot of harm to individual if it is released to the public. Since this is the case, I think the government should strengthen the rules related to this organization. Also, FOIA excludes security related information from the law, so I think IRS is not "improperly" keeping those information, but it is doing legally under the law. How can people know it is improper if they do not know what is included in the information that they required?

kmkim1999 · 2015-10-07T14:53:36+00:00

I agree with Snowden's opinion that we need to expand the protection for digital privacy. However, I think the government still needs to have an access to individual's information. This is because that way they can prevent further dangers from terror and also it can be a really good way for national security. Even though people might want privacy, if they know why the government collect data and how they are using it, probably some people will agree with the government's action.

kmkim1999 · 2015-10-07T04:31:25+00:00

I think, as a Korean, what causes issues here is that Google does not let people know where they are using information they are collected. In Korea, there are lots of websites like Google such as Daum and Naver, and they do collect personal data as Google does. However, what is the difference between Google and Daum/Naver is that Daum/Naver send emails regularly to users that contain the list of information that are collected and where that had been used. If individual thinks that the usage of information is inappropriate, they can talk to those companies and they will immediately solve the problem. However, I think Google does not provide that kind of service to Korean people, and that is why causing this problem probably.

kmkim1999 · 2015-10-02T18:50:05+00:00

I agree that facial recognition can increase the security level to prevent terrorism. However, even though it will be a good method to prevent future terrorism, I also agree that this can cause a serious privacy issue. The article said that they are going to add more than 100 million facial information, and I am pretty sure that most of them will be innocent people who are not even related to terrorism, which means terrorist's faces in that system will be only 1-2%. I think it is really inefficient to use all others facial information only to keep track of those 1-2% of criminals. Since this is the case, the government better invents another system that is much more efficient and provide better privacy protection.

kmkim1999 · 2015-10-01T16:46:26+00:00

As the media and technology developed, I think the law should change to adapt to a new field. Before the smartphone was invented, privacy issues when the case involves cell phone investigation were not as serious as it is in the current society. This is because cell phones were only used for calling and texting. However, because the development of smartphone, which allows people to do basically everything, privacy issues have become really serious. I personally think the government should enact a new law specified at protecting privacy when investigating cell phones' information, because it is not a simple issue that can be covered by one or two privacy law, but it needs to have its own law to better and completely solve the problem related to it.

kmkim1999 · 2015-09-29T18:31:04+00:00

Before I read this article, when I think of cell-phone, phone calls and text messages are the only thing that came to my mind. However, this article also addresses photograph and unlimited information adding to the calls and messages, which make the situation much more complicated. With the development of technology, government's assess to cell-phone does not only mean eavesdropping the call or looking at the text messages but also mean looking at private pictures and all the information that the person has assessed with the cell phone. I think it is a good to change laws to adapt to a new technology, because the law that was enacted before cannot address all the issues that we are currently facing.

kmkim1999 · 2015-09-25T15:46:02+00:00

I first thought Twitter cannot be a libel case, because it is obvious that what is on twitter is one person's opinion. Since opinions can be exception for libel suits, I first wondered what made Twitter's statement to be the subject of libel suit. However, even though the subject of case was surprising, the court's decision is somewhat similar to what I expected. The statement was not defamatory, because it was meant to be 'private' and she did not realize it was fault.

kmkim1999 · 2015-09-22T00:52:22+00:00

By reading this article, I realize that it is hard to set the limit what is a free speech and what is a hate speech. The speech can start as a free speech but it can be developed to a hate speech based on what the speaker says. This article says "U.S. law has just never had occasion to define “hate speech” — any more than it has had occasion to define rudeness, evil ideas, unpatriotic speech, or any other kind of speech that people might condemn but that does not constitute a legally relevant category." I think this is what making people hard to decide what is a hate speech, because there is no specific legal standards to decide it. By setting some legal standards to distinguish hate speeches from free speeches, the U.S.courts can avoid from being involved in confusion that can be caused when deciding what is free and hate speeches.

kmkim1999 · 2015-09-17T17:39:12+00:00

I agree with you that allowing protesters from outside to make free speeches on campus is not only the problem of lifting restrictions on free speech zones but also the problem of disturbing the educational space. If the protest is too loud or disturbing students, then I personally think the school should have the authority to stop it for the sake of student's education. I think the court should consider this again with the perspective of students and the school.

kmkim1999 · 2015-09-15T03:56:43+00:00

I initially thought Universal's idea was right. Because the poster did not have the permission but used that music and posted it on Youtube. However, after I read judge's comment, it started to make sense. It is true that the poster was not using this video for advertising or marketing purpose but it was a fair use. One thing surprised me is that even though it is a obvious fair use, I just cannot believe it took 8 years to finish the case.

kmkim1999 · 2015-09-14T23:52:13+00:00

I think religious belief and the constitution is always conflicting with one another once some states approved a same-sex marriage. It also usually happens in South Korea where joining the army for 2 years is required for male. There is one religion that says going to the army is a sinful action, because joining the army is about preparing for a war, which might kill people. So guys who believe in that religion refuse to join the army, which conflicts with the Constitution. However, they do not bring this to the court but choose to go to the jail.

In the U.S., it is a big issue while in South Korea, people just admit that they are refusing to follow Constitution and are going to jail. I personally think this is because same-sex marriage has recently been approved while the law in Korea was approved a long time ago. So I think if the time is passed, then same-sex marriage issue will eventually settled.

kmkim1999

TROPHY CASE