Legality of Blogging

In this new modern age of the internet, anyone who has an opinion is able to voice it if they want to. Their are websites, blogs, and chat rooms all over the internet that allow people to share their ideas, recommendations, and criticisms. With all of these opinions flying around the internet a problem has arose. When does an opinionated criticism become a crime and what exactly is legal to say about another person on the internet?

This topic has been in the news after an accountant has sued both Craigslist and a blogger on Craigslist for an extremely bad review that he received. The blogger, who has yet to be identified, called the accountant a "crook" as well as a few indecent remarks. The accountant is suing for 4 million dollars because of the damage that was done to his business as well as his name. Craigslist is currently trying to find the actual blogger who is being sued in order to save themselves from the meat of the lawsuit. They are making an effort to find the actual blogger because of a law that is in place that states, "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." This law gets Craigslist somewhat off the hook in this case, but does not in any way protect the actual person who posted the comment.

I think that people should be able to post whatever they want on websites such as this, but to a point. If a person has a terrible experience with a certain business then I think they should contact the business and not go and rant about it on the internet. Because of the scare of bad publicity on the internet, some companies and businesses are making clients sign forms agreeing that they will not write about their experiences on websites such as Craigslist. This is the classic case of with great power comes great responsibility. Us internet users have an opportunity to voice our opinions whenever we choose to, but we have to use it wisely. If a person has a bad experience with a business, then they should write about their experience honestly. Within this honesty their is no reason to be accusing anyone of criminal activity or using vulgarities.

In this case, I think the accountant has every right to sue the blogger who ranted about his business. It is a completely legal law suit and the blogger has damaged his business as well as his reputation by including what the accountant claims as "false information." In this case and in any case similar to this, it should be legal to sue when false words of one angry client damage a business. With this type of law, it almost always depends on the case, but their definitely should be a certain line that bloggers shouldn't cross.

Steroids Affecting Major League Business

For years now, we have had to hear about and deal with the MLB and steroids having such a negative impact on the game itself. We have heard about all the players who have "cheated" and used illegal substances to enhance performance. Those you used to be heroes to the game of baseball are now known as cheaters and liars. But what is it that sparked this "Steroid Era"? What makes these players want to use these illegal drugs and risk their reputation to millions of fans across the world? If you asked some of the players mentioned on the list, the answers may be more complex than you would imagine.

A minor league player has a very small chance of actually making it to the big leagues. In fact, some say that your chances are actually slim to none. But what if instead of living in an apartment with three other people and playing in front of a couple hundred people, you could be living in your own million dollar home, playing on national T.V., and living the dream being the hero to kids all around the world? Which one would you rather be? And if I told you that all you had to do was take steroids to get there, would you? I bet a lot of people have never really thought of it that way. That is where the business aspect comes in to play. If you're lucky in the minors, you can make about $24,000 a year (not counting the very few players with big signing bonuses). In the majors, the average salary for 2009, was about $3,000,000 a year and that number is rising.

Obviously, you have got to see why these players may consider taking a few pills to enhance their performance so they can actually make good money and live a happier life. The questions that come in to play are the ones regarding injury. Although many players would risk getting caught for steroids to make it to the bigs, there are some that would not want to risk the injuries that may come with taking steroids. Baseball teams will lose money on guys who can not play either because of suspensions or injuries that come about from taking steroids. A team who pays millions of dollars for a guy does not want to see that guy sitting on the bench for 50 games because of the suspension they get for failing a drug test like Manny Ramirez did just last year.

Then again, taking steroids is almost too good of an opportunity to pass up for many players. Look at this way: An average career for a major league player may last about 6 or 7 years amd steroids have been known to increase players' OPS(combination of on base percentage and slugging percentage) by about .100 which would most likely lead to a pay increase of $2,000,000 a year. So over that player's career, they could gain up to $12,000,000 more just by taking steroids. This may make it a little bit more clear as to why one may take steroids in the MLB. Still though, these drugs are taking over a game that has been around a lot longer than we have and will be around a lot longer than we will be. We have to respect it and keep the tradition of baseball going. Baseball is a sport where hours of training and extreme focus make you excel on the field. Steroids should have no say in that at all.

Gender Roles in the Workplace

Gender Roles in the workplace has been an issue for decades ever since women branched out of their typical expectations of being a stay at home mom and engrossed themselves in varieties of different fields of industry.

According to the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII, prohibits employers from discriminating against job seekers and employees on the basis of race, religion, sex, pregnancy, and national origin.

Women tend to be the victims when it comes to gender discrimination in the business world. In particular, women are less likely to get hired for a job that a man is also applying for. This is probably because generally speaking, women are more likely to leave their jobs when they get married or have children rather than men. However, as an employer, it would be unfair to assume this. If the woman is qualified for the job and shows promising work ethic, she should not be denied the job just because the employers fear that there is a possibility that she will one day leave her job. However, women should take this aspect into consideration when applying for a job because it is not fair to their employers if they plan to quit their job as soon as they get married or have a child. Women should have the integrity to be dedicated to their job and as long as they do that, the employers should not have any reason to treat them differently than men.

Although, there is also the issue of health benefits because women need more medical care than men if they plan on getting pregnant and having children. Yes, it may possibly be more costly but its not their fault that women are the only gender that can have children. There are men who want to have families too but it is impossible for them to have children so they don’t have to worry about these health issues. It is illegal for an employer to deny a woman these benefits because if she is the most qualified for the job, she should be provided beneficial healthcare just as a man would be.

A major controversy for gender roles in the workplace has been salary. According to Time Magazine, women earn 77 cents for every dollar men make. Some say this is because women tend to have careers that are lower paying such as a teacher as opposed to a business executive, and that is why they don’t receive as much income as men. However, there have been cases where women have the same exact job as men and the men are still getting paid more. Another possibility is that women usually take more time off to start a family and such, and so their pay is deducted for when they are absent. However, even with this minor difference, most economists believe that it is women being discriminated based on their gender.

Technically, women are protected against this discrimination through the Equal Pay Act (EPA). The EPA states that men and women in the same workplace are required to receive equal pay for equal work. The jobs need not be identical, as in they do not need to have the same job title, but the same job content, meaning the amount of work and effort it takes to fulfill the job requirement must be the same.

So how are employers slipping around these federal laws and still discriminating against women? Women are always held to a higher standard then men because they are expected to be a motherly figure that takes care of the household so if they want to have a professional career, they are expected to pull off both jobs at the same time. Yet, they are unappreciated by most of society, being portrayed as inferior to men. I am not saying that all of society is like this. Women have come along way since they first started fighting for their rights and I believe that their rights will continue to improve in society and the workplace. As for now, the gender roles in the workplace are unacceptable but I believe we are on the right track to making them up to standard.

2010 MLS Collective Bargaining Agreement: Great for MLS

A new collective bargaining deal has been reached between Major League Soccer(MLS) and its player union. This deal was agreed upon just days before the old collective bargaining deal was up, thereby discontinuing the anticipated player lockout of the 2010 season. There will be soccer played in America in 2010. The man ultimately responsible for making this unlikely deal happen is mediator George Cohen. This mediator worked extremely hard to makes sure both sides, the league and the players, got what they wanted out of this collective bargaining agreement. There are some interesting aspects of this new deal, some of which have never been used in professional sports. By using this technique, George Cohen was able to make both sides agree on a deal, and now there will be soccer played. The exact details of this agreement have yet to be released to the public, but the public does already know some things about this new deal. First of all, the players will be making more money. This was a very big issue with the old collective bargaining agreement. The players were not happy with their salaries, as they were being paid a lot less than any other professional athletes were. In order to pay the players more, the teams will now be allowed to expend more money into their players, reportedly going from $2.3m to $2.6m per team. Next, the deal consists of creating a minimum salary of $40k for the players. This may not sound like a lot compared to other professional athletes, but last year some players were making a salary of $12,100 per year. This minimum salary will result in more players being paid more money. Another change to this collective bargaining deal is that they players will get many more guaranteed contracts. This gives players the peace-of-mind that they will get paid their money no matter what happens to them. It is much easier to play and compete at a high level when you know that your money is guaranteed. This was one of the most highly demanded parts of the contract for the players. The last major change made in this new collective bargaining deal is that there will be no free agency, and instead a re-entry draft. This means that when a players contract is up, their team will no longer hold their rights. This can be good or bad for both the players and the teams. It will be much harder to keep a player that you want to keep, but a lot easier to get rid of someone you don't want. On the players' side, this move will result in more money for them if they have performed well on the field. The players no longer under contract will now be entered into a re-entry draft, where other teams can draft and sign this players. This is a move that is not present in any other American professional sports, so the MLS will have to wait and see how it works out. Both the players and the league agreed on this collective bargaining agreement, so hopefully it will work out well for both of them.
I think that this is the best thing that could've happened to the MLS. We are in a time now when the popularity of soccer in America is rising thanks to stars who play on our soil like Landon Donovan and David Beckam. A player lockout would've diminished the rising popularity of the sport, and I don't believe that it would've been able to heal. This new deal benefits both the player union and the league, which is what everyone wants when trying to reach a deal. I see this collective bargaining agreement as the beginning of a bright future for professional soccer in America. Fan support of American soccer is at an all time high, with huge fan bases in cities such as Seattle and Los Angeles. MLS franchises in these cities have done pretty well, leading people to believe that franchises can do as well in other cities in the future. A beautiful new stadium is nearly finished in Philadelphia, where a new MLS franchise will be located. According to a soccer source, fans in Philadelphia,"Can't wait to cheer and sing their heart out for the upcoming events." This type of enthusiasm and passion about soccer is a new thing, and the MLS needs to build off of it. That is exactly why this collective bargaining agreement is such a big deal. The American population is ready and excited to take soccer into their lives, and the MLS is going to give it to them. This new agreement is allowing the MLS to finally become one of the major American sports, now the MLS just needs to use it to their advantage. They have already started by creating this new franchises in new cities and improving the current franchises. This collective bargaining deal is great for both sides of the negotiations, and it has laid down the path for professional soccer in America to become a major sport.

Is the NFL Liable for Dementia?

Ralph Wenzel was a healthy offensive guard in the NFL years ago. Now he needs assistance for even the easiest of tasks. The 67 year old is suffering from dementia. His wife, Dr. Eleanor Perfetto, filed a worker's compensation claim on his behalf. Perfetto, whose husband has been living in an assisted living facility for three years, is pushing for worker compensation from the NFL. Perfetto filed the claim in the state of California, which has an interesting worker's compensation system for retired professional athletes. Under the system, athletes need to have played only one game in the state of California during their career. A single game would make them eligible to receive over $100,000 in compensation for certain injuries.

Wenzel's claim is unique. Unlike the other claims which have dealt with orthopedic surgeries, Perfetto is claiming that her husband has received dementia because of his seven years spent playing pro football. Lawyers estimate the potential value of the case to be over $1 million. This would be worrisome for the league because many other players would be able to file similar suits. The teams and their insurers could be liable for over $100 million under the California system if players were to receive compensation for dementia. As of now the league would be able to cover the cost, but if insurance premiums rise, the league may have to change some of its rules to decrease the likelihood of head injuries. One proposal is to forbid linemen from using a three point stance.

Dennis Curran, the NFL's senior vice president for labor litigation and policy, said that the league was already providing financial aid to families of player's suffering from dementia by paying parts of medical expenses and doctor visits. Most claims are payed by teams or insurance carriers. Perfetto may have difficulty winning her claim due to her participation in the 88 plan. This plan is a program run by the NFL and the player's union that reimburses medical costs of families with former NFL players suffering from dementia up to $88,000 a year. But, players who played less than four seasons are not eligible for the plan. The California law states that the employer or insurance carrier has to pay for all the current and future medical costs as well as the costs incurred as a result of the workplace injury, which is why Wenzel's case could be worth more than $1 million.

Research has revealed that retired football players have an increased rate of early-onset dementia. But, the difficulty is proving that the dementia was caused by football and not natural events. Personally, I believe that Wenzel's dementia is caused from his football years. But, there is no way to prove this. Thus, I don't think that his claim will win. On the other hand, I do think the NFL should be liable for dementia because the evidence supports the fact that playing football increases the likelihood of the disease. It is extremely sad that these retired players have to suffer so much as a result of providing entertainment for fans. I think it is the league's responsibility to provide these players with adequate compensation for their injuries. Furthermore, I disagree with the law in California. I think it is absurd that a professional athlete only needs to have played one game in the state to be eligible for compensation. Even if the player was not injured in the game they played in California they can still receive hundreds of thousands of dollars due to the system. Overall, I think that the NFL is liable for dementia and that a case will eventually be presented in which it is clear that the retired player's dementia is a result of participating in the NFL. Until such a case happens, the NFL is not going to worry about providing compensation for dementia under the California system.

Juvenile Sex Offender Registry

The topic presented here is whether or not to create a juvenile sex offender registry. More than 20 states already currently have a juvenile sex offender registry but only Ohio is in full compliance with the Adam Walsh Act. The Adam Walsh act is purposefully designed to protect the public against violent sex offenders by having a more complete sex offender registry. Now let's get to some of the pros and cons behind juvenile sex offender registry. A pro behind this would be that the public would be able to know of violent criminals in the area. However a con of that is that the reputation of a child could be ruined and they may never be able to life a normal life. Another pro is that states would be able to secure grant money disbursed to law enforcement agencies. A con that goes along with that is the state would lose federal money that goes to local law enforcement. There is clearly both a good and bad side of having a juvenile sex offender registry. The proposed bill also states that teens would be listed on the registry for 25 years. When the teen reached the adult age, they would continue to have a record as an adult and would be placed on the adult registry.

Representative Debra Maggart stated, "I think we all have a responsibility to protect our future victims, the little children who are a future victim." From her standpoint it seems as if she is a mother who has children and doesn't want any child to have to go through that so she wants to know of juveniles in her surrounding neighborhood that have committed these awful crimes. Another point of view comes from Dr. Tarah Kuhn, a licensed clinical psychologist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center who is against the idea of a juvenile sex offender registry. Dr. Kuhn explains, "Clearly they need to be held accountable for their negative behaviors but the system was set up to hold them accountable in a different way than adults are and give them the opportunity to correct their wrongs and go on to have a successful life as an adult." She believes that they should still be treated as kids and they should almost be given a chance to turn their lives around. From this you can see that there are two completely different sides behind this topic.

My view on this topic is very similar to Representative Debra Maggart in that I believe the bill should be passed in order to protect the future victims. The part I don't agree with is that they should have to be registered for 25 years. There is no way that a 40 year old man can still be considered a sex offender when he committed a crime when he was 15 years old. I think that they should have to be registered for 10-15 years and I hope that this bill passes.

Technology Companies Investigated for Anti-Trust Violation

Many technology companies including Google Inc., Intel Corp., International Business Machines Corp., Apple Inc., and InterActive Corp., are being investigated for violating an anti-trust law. The argument is that these companies hiring practices are violating part of the anti-trust law. The issue is that these companies have agreed not to recruit each others' employees so they do not have to pay computer engineers as much as they deserve. Anti-trust believe that "an agreement between competitors that holds down labor costs is as much a violation of anti-trust laws as an agreement to fix prices" reports Brent Kendall of the Wall Street Journal. Government officials have begun to ask companies about how they hire their employees. The technology companies response to these allegations is that their practices are lawful and they don't affect how much they pay their employees or job accessibility.

I believe that the technology companies are violating the anti-trust act. When companies agree to not recruit each others' employees, they are taking away from the competitiveness of the free market system of America. If there was no competition among companies then one company would be able to monopolize and no one would be able to start up a similar business. This practice is also unfair to the employees of the technology companies. The employees are being paid less and receiving less benefits as a consequence of these actions. These hiring practices also affect availability of jobs in the technology industry. Since no company will recruit another company's employee, no one will want to leave their job; therefore there will be less jobs available.

Microsoft is another technology company that has been accused of violating anti-trust laws and has been brought to trial by 19 different states as well as the U.S. Justice Department. The verdict was made by Judge Penfield Jackson who is also expected to decide on Microsoft's remedies by this summer.

It will be interesting to see whether or not other companies will be brought to trial and how the U.S. Justice Department handles this case. It may be difficult to obtain evidence against these companies which is why the other companies have not undergone an official investigation yet. However, I believe that these companies should be investigated because they are breaking the law.

Cyberbullying

Photo above courtesy to mediabistro.com


With every new piece of technology comes the choice whether one will use or misuse it. In today’s modern world every kid, with some exceptions, has cell phone. Most common is Apple’s iPhone, and various other Smartphone’s. With such a boom in connectivity between children in recent years, it is hard for schools to manage online harassment, known as cyber bullying.

Recently a California court case has found that cyber bullying is not protected under the first amendment. With nothing to look to, this has been the first decided case involving cyberbulling. In this case, a group of teens and parents were sued by the bullied victim. Refusing to settle the case, specifically call a SLAPP suit (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation), the court found the online statements at issue of the "true threat" exception to First Amendment.


The victim had an ongoing acting and singing career, and had also designed a webpage to promote himself. Several students decided that this was worthy of sending threatening messages and what they believed to be his sexual orientation Soon after, his parents removed him from the school, and filed suit, claiming hate crimes, defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The group of teens sent various amount texts to the victim including, but not limited to, "I want to rip out your f***ing heart and feed it to you. ... I've ... wanted to kill you. If I ever see you I'm ... going to pound your head in with an ice pick."




Above photo courtesy to Chris Kasurak

In a 2-1 decision, the California Court of Appeals for the 2nd District found in favor of a student who sued other students after receiving threats posted on his website.
This case was brought under the anti-SLAPP statute. This law protects defendants from suits over protected speech addressing public issues. The court found the defendant's message to be threatening, even though the defendants claimed that it was a "joke".



Above photo courtesy to bebo.com

This is a horrible thing to happen. Everyone has been bullied before by someone else in their life. The only way to stop the bulling is to seek help from fellow peers, teachers, and parents.




While searching on other blogs I came upon a parent who had an simply answer to solve this issue, "I think people are forgetting something .. . You can always turn the computer off and walk away".http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.parcbench.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/cyberbullying2_05.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.parcbench.com/2009/09/02/anonymity-unbound-%25E2%2580%2593-cyber-babies-vs-cyber-bullies/&usg=__fBU9W8YM-HmDZFXUjfboKrt_u_Q=&h=303&w=336&sz=27&hl=en&start=3&sig2=T5nCGVGZF9Z8MfB7ZcOaiQ&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=j9YxpHZbSV2AdM:&tbnh=107&tbnw=119&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcyber%2Bbullying%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26tbs%3Disch:1&ei=61XWS9H2KcKBlAfuk9jsAw However, as simply of an answer this is, this parent is right. Teens have to ablilty to turn off the computer and walk away. This choice is the same as if they were being asked to take drugs and such.

Courtesy below to..


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZgpmuz2MQc

New Credit Age

Once our new president stepped into office he began his effort to increase the age limit for credit card owners. The reason for this was that too many young people were getting into extreme debt. Obama hopes that the increase in the age limit will put a dent in the nations debt problems. Credit card companies were setting up stands on college campuses and convincing students to open up their own credit. They were even offering free t-shirts with their college names on them with the purpose of luring the students in. As of February 22nd, you must be 21(was 18) in order to have a credit card without a cosigner that is also 21. I strongly agree with the change. I'm not saying that an 18 is not responsible enough to have a credit card, I just believe that it is wrong for credit unions to be offering credit to students who's primary income is their parents. There have been too many stories about kids burying themselves in debt and in some cases, killing themselves because they feel that there is no way out. By age 21, most people are near done with school and are starting their careers, this is a good time to start your credit because you need money for starting different parts of career and your life. Now what are some reasons why teenagers should be allowed credit? They need to build a credit history so they can apply for loans such as a car loan. Also, with a decent credit score, it shows that the person is responsible and trustworthy. This could be very helpful with getting a job in the future, but what if the person has not gained the responsibility to build a good credit score and starts to go downhill.



Youtube Video- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKkv2aEPOiM