Homework 4

   http://gigaom.com/2011/02/26/how-social-media-is-pushing-the-limits-of-legal-ethics/

    My case involves the story on the above link.  Using social media sites has become a problem in the law field. People have used social media sites white in court, sometimes in the middle of a trial.  This is considered a problem usually with jury members. Jurors are supposed to keep themselves from obtainig information from outside sources such as newpapers and television and some see social media site as another outlet that can influence a jury member in an unfair way. Some judges are going as far as asking for jurors login information in order to moniter jurors social media activity during trails.

    I personally think that people involved in trails that decide whether a person is going to spend his life in jail or that decide if a person are innocent of some crime should have jurors that don't get outside information. Facebook doesn't have the best source of information about a ongoing case so people should talk to anyone about cases on facebook.  Judges don't have the right to ask for peoples login information though.





    Susan's case involved the Westbury Church.  The Westbury Church has been involved in a few court cases and alot of conflict with many groups. The Westbury Church has been protected by the 1st amendment most of the time while they are in court.  We discussed how far the 1st amendment should extend and if the Westbury Church should be be protected.  I felt that the Westbury Church should not be protect as while commiting such acts such as interrupting a funeral in order to protest.

    Eric's case involved engineering structures. In a county in Arkansas there was a bridge that was deemed to not be structually sound by an engineer. The county did not perform anywork on the bridge though. A few years later the bridge fell and around 40 people died.  The county was not held responsible. I feel that a county should have responsiblilty for something such as this.  It may not be possible to "punish" the adminstration that was responsible for this bridge but it should still be the governments responsibility to work on things such as these.

    Omar discussed internet censorship.  He showed examples such as how tv shows are only allowed to show certain content and how China has their internet censored.  This is a question of government control vs free speech.  I felt that the internet shouldn't be censored in any way.  Obviously this would be a huge project in the first place that would use resources that could be used elsewhere.

    Christina discussed a South Dakota bill that would involve murder.  The basis of the law would be that it would be legal to kill a person that was in the process of killing another person.  This seemes like self defense at first glance.  But Christina asked where the line would be drawn. What would be considered murder.  Would doctors that perform abortions be fair game. What about judges that give the death penalty. The President has the power to declare war, one of the biggest forms of mass murder would a person then be able to kill him now in order to "prevent" future murders. I obviously disagree with this possible law.

    Amber had two cases this week.  One discussed the ethics of forcing good on someone.  There are times when a person will disagree with a medical practice that they normal would take such as when they are afflicted with a disease that affect their mind. One example was cutting off someones leg in order to stop infection.
    Her next case was about hypothetically what would you do in a situation. Your child is sick and you and your spouse decide to take him to the hospital.  A cop stops your for speeding.  He says that it will take a while to process the ticket.  He says your can either go with him to the police station or you can pay the cop with cash on the spot.
    Sometimes it is ok to force good on a person but it should not be taken lightly. The spouse should take the child to the hospital and you should go with the officer.