#ProjectREALOrg

[projectrealnv]

The Patents Behind Facebook’s Scary Accurate Friend Suggestions...

Have you ever heard of people receiving Facebook “friend suggestions” that were so accurate that they were creepy? Maybe one night they attended a party and only talked to one person, then somehow  woke up the next morning to find that Facebook had  suggested the person friend-request them!

It happens more often than you think, and there is a perfectly legal reason for it! The social media site uses technology to connect two people based on the metadata from cameras used to upload photos and the data embedded into those pictures (data like GPS coordinates where the picture was taken). Even scratches and dust marks in the pictures could be used to identify a specific camera that was used to take the picture.

Facebook is legally allowed to do all of this, but people only know that the company even had the idea to do that because of a series of patents they filed in 2014 and 2015.  If someone else uses their invention (in this case the technology) without permission, they can be taken to court and sued!

One of the patents is titled ‘Systems and methods for utilizing wireless communications to suggest connections for a user’ and explains how logged smartphone data can be used to make friend recommendations. The algorithm incorporates other information as well, like the amount of time between two wireless communications (uploading and receiving a photo) or the signal strength at the time of the data exchange.  With those seemingly impersonal bits of information, Facebook is able to recognize and identify when two people are walking together or facing each other.

Another of the patents is titled ‘Associating cameras with users and objects in a social networking system’ and highlights how data from photos uploaded to the site can be used to connect people. The ‘data’ that is compared isn’t just 1s and 0s… The patent details how the information used to identify the photographer could be as simple as a file name or as complex as a dust particle on a camera lens that appears in the same place in multiple photos (which suggest they were taken by the same camera, like a photographic fingerprint).

Even if the processes Facebook patented are lawful, what are the implications for non-users that get identified by the algorithm?  Imagine this:

You’re a privacy hound who doesn’t use social media sites because you like to control the use of your data simply because you don’t like mega corporations.  Let’s say you’re also a photographer, and you post photos to a website.  If a fan of yours shared a photo on Facebook and labeled you as the photographer, would Facebook have a legal right to identify other pictures you’d taken with the same camera even if you weren’t the person uploading them to the website? What could a non-user do to fight this system?  Explain your answers.  If you need more information first, you can read the article this piece was sourced from here:  

http://in.pcmag.com/facebook/118580/news/facebook-can-track-you-using-the-dust-and-scratches-on-your

Contributed by- J. Plummer

[yourdayincourtblog]

Cat Gets Fat Stacks From Lawsuit

Internet celebrity Grumpy Cat should be doing anything but frowning after receiving over $700,000 in a lawsuit.

The frowny feline known as Grumpy Cat’s rise to popularity began in 2012 when her down and dismissive attitude won over the hearts of the meme market. Grumpy Cat’s stardom prompted her owner to monetize on that success, so she started Grumpy Cat Limited. The potential for profits from the sourpuss generated licensing deals with numerous companies.  One of those companies was Grenade (a beverage company).

Unfortunately, a licensing deal between the two companies to allow for the creation of iced coffees called “Grumpy Cat Grumppuccino” did not end well.  Grenade may have thought they weren’t doing anything wrong when they produced a line of “Grumpy Cat Roasted Coffee” products.

And that is where the real grump begins.

Drawn into a dispute, Grumpy Cat (the company, not the cat) brought Grenade to federal court in a copyright lawsuit.  Grumpy Cat Limited claimed the roasted coffee featuring Grumpy Cat and Grumppuccino t-shirts which Grenade was also making and selling was not part of their licensing agreement.  The company claimed in court they had only licensed the use of Grumpy Cat for the ‘Grumpuccino Iced Coffees’.  Grumpy Cat Limited claimed that by using Grumpy cat to sell another coffee line and t-shirts, Grenade was stealing from them.  

Grenade then turned around on Grumpy Cat Limited and filed a countersuit. They stated the crabby cat wasn't promoting the iced coffee the way the licensing agreement had said she would.  Basically, Grenade claimed the grump’s slump of a movie career was a violation by Grumpy Cat Limited of stipulations in the licensing agreement.  To support the claim of contract violation, the company’s attorney pointed out an instance where the owner failed to mention the Grumpuccino Iced Coffee in a live appearance on Fox News (as promised), and the minor amount of social media posts about the chilled beverage from accounts controlled by Grumpy Cat Limited.

These claims though fell on deaf ears as the jury threw out the countersuit and decided in favor of Grumpy Cat Limited, awarding the cat (or at least her company) more than $700,000. Following this decision, the favorable feline can now hold her head high while hanging her frown low.

Questions to Consider:

1.a) The 7th amendment of the constitution guarantees the right of trial by jury in serious criminal cases and certain civil ones like this.  Both sides, in this case, are entitled to request a jury trial to decide the verdict.  Grumpy Cat is a known icon on the internet and is bound to have some sort of diverse fanbase.  Do you believe a person’s status affect juries in court, and if so, how?

1.b) Have you seen or heard of any cases where someone's high or low status affected the outcome of a trial? Share details, or if you haven’t heard of a case like that occurring, explain why you think that is.

1.c.) Do you think Grumpy Cat's status was a factor in the outcome of her court case, and if so what can courts do to ensure an unbiased outcome is achieved in an otherwise fair trial?

2.a ) Grumpy Cat Limited’s initial lawsuit was over Grenade’s infringement of copyright. What are some specific copyright laws that protect brands from being misused by other companies?

2.b) What is the difference between licensing a product and enforcing a copyright or trademark?

3.a) After being sued by Grumpy Cat Limited, Grenade launched a countersuit against the company in an attempt to defend themselves. They claimed that Grumpy Cat Limited didn’t deliver on the duties they promised to fulfill in the agreement (like the lack of social media posts, and the Fox News shout-out that didn‘t happen). If Grenade was claiming they used Grumpy Cat on the other coffee and t-shirts to make up for the value that Grumpy’s company wasn’t delivering on despite being contractually obligated to do so, should they have at least had a chance to win in court?

3.b) Imagine that (A) Grenade’s extra use of Grumpy’s image was stealing even though (B) they weren’t getting what they paid for in the original agreement, and the Grenade knew that their actions could be classified as stealing.  If those were the facts, why might Grenade have still countersued Grumpy Cat Limited, and what would the possible benefits be?

-Submitted by J. Floyd

For more information or material for your answers, you can explore the original story this article was inspired by here:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-grumpy-cat-lawsuit-20180124-story.html

[projectrealnv]

California Volunteers share Food With The Homeless, Get Arrested By Police

On January 14th of 2018, 12 people from a volunteer group were arrested for handing out food to the homeless.

To provide some backstory to this situation, a community group called “Break The Ban” were distributing food and other items to the homeless population at a park in California. According to the police officers that arrived, they were violating a ban on sharing food in city-owned public areas, which was recently passed by the City of El Cajon in 2017. The reason for this ban was to stop the spread of Hepatitis A. the police cited some of the volunteers to jail but did not take them. But, for the two volunteers they arrested are scheduled to appear in court. The group was outraged by the act and is planning to fight the citations and the food-sharing ban.

There was another case in which this incident has occurred. According to Forbes, in Fort Lauderdale, police arrested a 90-year old man and two ministers in 2014 for trying to share their food with the homeless. In October of 2014, the city enacted an ordinance that bans sharing food in public parks, unless they have a permit from the city. As a result of this situation, the organization arrested (Food Not Bombs) sued the city of Fort Lauderdale on the basis of the ordinance violated their right to free speech and free association, and the ordinance was “unconstitutionally vague.” At first, a federal district court dismissed the case since food sharing events were outside the scope of the First Amendment since it did not convey a “particularized message.”

But, under that line of reasoning, that sounds like the First Amendment is confined to expressions conveying a particularized message. So, as a result, the case was ruled that Food Not Bombs does have a First Amendment right to share food. The case was sent back down to the lower courts to determine if the city’s ordinance was in violation of those rights. The city of Lauderdale has not responded to the request yet.

Explain your answers and for more details, you can read the article this piece was sourced from here:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/homeless-el-cajon-california-arrests_us_5a5de4f4e4b0fcbc3a1355f4?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

And / or

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2018/08/27/federal-court-first-amendment-protects-sharing-food-with-homeless-people/#fe8283b4884

Questions (answer them all!):

1. How does the First Amendment apply to these news stories?

2. Why do you feel the ordinance being issued to prevent the spread of Hepatitis A was or was not justified? 

3. Are there laws in your community restricting feeding the homeless, if so what are they, how do you feel about there being or not being laws about this activity in your community, and what can you do to support/change those local laws/policies?

4. (High School Students only) Even if you disagree with the policy in this case, imagine that there are some activities that people volunteer for or donate to that are meant to ‘make the world a better place’, but which should be managed or limited by local laws. How should local governments and law makers decide if an activity requires them to get involved in those activities (ex: Should sheltering homeless animals and feeding the homeless face the same kinds of restriction)?

Contributed by - J. Pennington

[projectrealnv]

Law Firm Claims Rival Sucked Up Business By Copying And Hijacking Their Website

We are taught not to copy a person’s work since it can get us in trouble. According to an article by Above The Law, a law firm is suiting another firm on the basis of copying and hijacking their website.

In Illinois, Motta & Motta is suing Dolci & Weiland over the alleged hijacking and plagiarism. The suit claims that Dolci capitalized on Motta’s reputation by using website hashtags and headers to mislead search engines into believing Motta’s website is Dolci’s website. According to the suit allegations, Dolci & Weiland’s website mirrored Motta’s copyrighted design and content and even copied (verbatim) articles and blogs on Motta’s website.

In school, we are taught many basic principles such as reading, writing, mathematics, but we also introduced into many ethical values as well, such as responsibility, quality, leadership, respect, and honesty. One way these ethical values are exercised is through integrity and not committing plagiarism. This article brings up some interesting points relating to privacy, defamation, and fraud and how Dolci’s law firm was acting unlawfully. Instead of Dolci taking the time to create their website and content, they are now facing a lengthy legal process that is going to cost them a lot of money!

Questions:

1.In what situations is it against the law to impersonate someone online?

2. When would impersonating a person online be a form of fraud, or why would it not be a fraud? 

3. The law firm that claimed to be victimized specifically mentioned hashtags in their complaint.  Hashtags are basically hyperlinks: text that results in being connected to related information.  If the law firm sued only over the plagiarism of the hashtags on their website, why do you think they would or would not have a good chance of winning their case in court?  Be specific by using other lawsuits or trademark and copyright news articles as examples when creating your response.*  

----------------- *Hint #1: Are companies guaranteed websites with their names? *Hint #2: What are some examples of trademarks, copyrights, and the differences between the two?

Be sure to provide full explanations for your answers.  For more details, you can read the article this piece was sourced from here: https://abovethelaw.com/2018/08/law-firm-claims-rival-sucked-up-business-by-copying-and-hijacking-their-website/

Contributed by - J. Pennington

[projectrealnv]

WHAT?!  IS?!  MEAT?! Missouri Label Law Says it Comes From An Animal; Some Disagree

When it comes to meat products, this is a major market within the United States. Besides Lady Gaga wearing a slab of red meats, Americans on average eat over 100 pounds of meat per year. But, what does meat have to do with law?

On August 29th, 2018, a Missouri law was passed to require that only products that come from slaughterhouses, once-breathing animals can be marketed as meat. Specifically, the law labels meat as something that is harvest from production livestock or poultry. The law is intended to inform the public on what exactly is in the product.

For instance, in cases in which plant-based products (soy, eggplant, etc.) are made into burgers, they cannot be labeled as such since they did not come from a slaughterhouse and were not “once-breathing animals.”

A similar bill is currently being reviewed within the Senate. The US Department of Agriculture is considering to establish beef and meat labeling requirements and to exclude products not derived directly from animals raised and slaughtered from the definition of “beef” and “meat”.

The reason for this law, on a federal level, is to better inform consumers and there are no labeling requirements currently for labeling beef or meat. The major concern is from a non-profit corporation from Montana called the “United States Cattlemen’s Association” and are concerned with the ‘synthetic products’ being introduced into the market and being marketed as ‘beef’.  

The controversy over this case comes from people who consider plant-based products as ‘meaty’ or ‘soy roast beef’. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit say that this categorizing infringes on the First Amendment rights and prevents the clear and accurate labeling of plant-based and clean meat products. The plaintiffs claim that this is a way for them to stifle plant-based meats in grocery stores.

A similar lawsuit was filed in Florida. A state law required milk product to be labeled as “skim milk” only if it had the same level of Vitamin A as whole milk. Dairy farmers begged to differ and sued, saying that their product was skim milk and should be deemed as such. Ultimately, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in the dairy farmer’s favor since the farm’s “use of the words ‘skim milk’ to describe its skim milk is not inherently misleading.”

Overall, this case is currently being debated and it is now your turn to voice your opinion!

Questions:

What does the US Department of Agriculture do?

How do you feel the First Amendment does or does not apply to this case?

Should plant-based products be allowed to use the word ‘meat’ in their name, and why do you feel that way? 

Explain your answers and for more details you can read the article this piece was sourced from here: https://www.npr.org/2018/08/29/642937901/whats-meat-anyway-missouri-label-law-says-it-comes-from-an-animal-some-disagree?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20180829

Here’s an optional additional starting place as you develop your responses (Note: Consider the source! Who’s writing it, and do they have a story they want you to believe, or are they presenting all the facts?):

http://www.uscattlemen.org/Templates/pdfs_USCA/2018-PDFs/2-9-18USCA-AMS-Petition-re-definition-of-beef-and-meat.pdf

Contributed by - J. Pennington

[projectrealnv]

Cat Get Fat Stacks From Lawsuit

Internet celebrity Grumpy Cat should be doing anything but frowning after receiving over $700,000 in a lawsuit.

The frowny feline known as Grumpy Cat’s rise to popularity began in 2012 when her down and dismissive attitude won over the hearts of the meme market. Grumpy Cat’s stardom prompted her owner to monetize on that success, so she started Grumpy Cat Limited. The potential for profits from the sourpuss generated licensing deals with numerous companies.  One of those companies was Grenade (a beverage company).

Unfortunately, a licensing deal between the two companies to allow for the creation of iced coffees called “Grumpy Cat Grumppuccino” did not end well.  Grenade may have thought they weren’t doing anything wrong when they produced a line of “Grumpy Cat Roasted Coffee” products.

And that is where the real grump begins.

Drawn into a dispute, Grumpy Cat (the company, not the cat) brought Grenade to federal court in a copyright lawsuit.  Grumpy Cat Limited claimed the roasted coffee featuring Grumpy Cat and Grumppuccino t-shirts which Grenade was also making and selling was not part of their licensing agreement.  The company claimed in court they had only licensed the use of Grumpy Cat for the ‘Grumpuccino Iced Coffees’.  Grumpy Cat Limited claimed that by using Grumpy cat to sell another coffee line and t-shirts, Grenade was stealing from them.  

Grenade then turned around on Grumpy Cat Limited and filed a countersuit. They stated the crabby cat wasn’t promoting the iced coffee the way the licensing agreement had said she would.  Basically, Grenade claimed the grump’s slump of a movie career was a violation by Grumpy Cat Limited of stipulations in the licensing agreement.  To support the claim of contract violation, the company’s attorney pointed out an instance where the owner failed to mention the Grumpuccino Iced Coffee in a live appearance on Fox News (as promised), and the minor amount of social media posts about the chilled beverage from accounts controlled by Grumpy Cat Limited.

These claims though fell on deaf ears as the jury threw out the countersuit and decided in favor of Grumpy Cat Limited, awarding the cat (or at least her company) more than $700,000. Following this decision, the favorable feline can now hold her head high while hanging her frown low.

Questions to Consider:

1.a) The 7th amendment of the constitution guarantees the right of trial by jury in serious criminal cases and certain civil ones like this.  Both sides, in this case, are entitled to request a jury trial to decide the verdict.  Grumpy Cat is a known icon on the internet and is bound to have some sort of diverse fanbase.  Do you believe a person’s status affect juries in court, and if so, how?

1.b) Have you seen or heard of any cases where someone’s high or low status affected the outcome of a trial? Share details, or if you haven’t heard of a case like that occurring, explain why you think that is.

1.c.) Do you think Grumpy Cat’s status was a factor in the outcome of her court case, and if so what can courts do to ensure an unbiased outcome is achieved in an otherwise fair trial?

2.a ) Grumpy Cat Limited’s initial lawsuit was over Grenade’s infringement of copyright. What are some specific copyright laws that protect brands from being misused by other companies?

2.b) What is the difference between licensing a product and enforcing a copyright or trademark?

3.a) After being sued by Grumpy Cat Limited, Grenade launched a countersuit against the company in an attempt to defend themselves. They claimed that Grumpy Cat Limited didn’t deliver on the duties they promised to fulfill in the agreement (like the lack of social media posts, and the Fox News shout-out that didn‘t happen). If Grenade was claiming they used Grumpy Cat on the other coffee and t-shirts to make up for the value that Grumpy’s company wasn’t delivering on despite being contractually obligated to do so, should they have at least had a chance to win in court?

3.b) Imagine that (A) Grenade’s extra use of Grumpy’s image was stealing even though (B) they weren’t getting what they paid for in the original agreement, and the Grenade knew that their actions could be classified as stealing.  If those were the facts, why might Grenade have still countersued Grumpy Cat Limited, and what would the possible benefits be?

-Submitted by J. Floyd

For more information or material for your answers, you can explore the original story this article was inspired by here:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-grumpy-cat-lawsuit-20180124-story.html

[yourdayincourtblog]

Righting the Wrongs in Florida Rights Restoration

The right to vote is a given liberty to all U.S citizens. This said anything given can be taken away. A felony conviction can cause a citizen to lose this precious right. In Florida, felons who have served their time have struggled to obtain their voting rights back. After taking their fight to Federal Court, things may have gotten better for people who’ve paid their debt to society.

Before the federal lawsuit, Florida’s felons would have to go before an Executive Clemency Board and request that their voting rights be restored.  Despite being a voter-elected position, Florida’s Governor is one of the people who have a seat on the state’s Executive Clemency Board.

Governor Scott had been the head panel member of the Board by nine people with past felonies.   They decided to sue for their rights back, and used one incident in particular to make their case:

At one point, Scott had restored the voting rights of a white man who had cast an illegal ballot in 2010 (an election during which he had voted for Scott - or so he claimed during the hearing which the Governor was present at).  Around the same time, Scott had denied five other requests, with four of those requests coming from African-Americans. With Scott being a touted-Republican and most of Florida’s African Americans being registered Democrats, the Governor’s judgment and use of power were brought into question by the lawsuit.

Politics aren’t supposed to play into the decision to restore voter rights. Florida’s intended design of the system was one where the Clemency Board reviews applicants eligible for restoration based if they pass the criteria. Eligibility is available five years after completion of a sentence with full payment of restitution. Soon after the Office of Executive Clemency inspect the applicant and decide from a range of factors the possible acceptance of restoration.

U.S District Judge Mark Walker’s questioned Scott’s “unfettered discretion in restoring voting rights”. The Judge’s decision in Federal Court ruled Florida’s right restoration system in violation of the 1st and 14th amendments.  Now as a result of the lawsuit, Governor Scott is the state’s first to have restrictions placed on his role in restoring felons’ rights to vote.  

In defense of Florida’s practices, Scott’s communication director stated: “The discretion of the clemency board over the restoration of felons’ rights in Florida has been in place for decade[s] and overseen by multiple governors.”

Florida’s restoration system will now undergo changes as a result of Judge Walker’s ruling, and the nine people involved in the lawsuit will once again be able to attempt to restore their voting rights.

Questions to Consider:

Nine people who filed this case to report issues with the process of rights restorations in Florida. They didn’t believe in the justice of that system, and the judge ended up ruling in their favor.  In his decision, the judge cited Florida’s state government for violating  the 1st and 14th amendments which lead to his final decision.

1.a) In what ways could Florida have violated these amendments? Do you agree or disagree with the Judge’s claim that these violations occurred?

1. b) The nine people were also burdened with the financial cost of paying for their case. Are they eligible for any kind of compensation for the expenses they took on, now that the case seems to have been decided in their favor? Tell us what laws support your answer.

1.c) The federal court had to intervene to establish balance for the restoration process in Florida because of the potential bias a governor may have.  With this restriction in place, how much authority does Florida have when it comes to returning right to their citizens, and is that too much or too little authority for the state to have?

2.a) A 2016 survey led statisticians to estimate that 1.68 million Floridians had lost their voting rights. These statistics differ around the country.  How many people in Nevada have lost their voting rights this year so far, and what about in the past 10 years?

2.b) How would someone in Nevada get their voting rights restored and how is that process different than the one in Florida?

3) As you’ve just learned, a citizens lose certain rights after being convicted of a felony. Once they’ve served their sentences, many of these people try to reform their lives to become better than they were before. Even though they’ve ‘served their time’, some will continue to experience ongoing punishment when some of their rights remain revoked (until they take additional steps to have some of those rights restored).   Does restricting felons’ rights after they’ve served out their sentences do enough to help them learn from their mistake, or does the policy of not instantly restoring their rights (like the right to vote) after they’ve been released from prison go too far? Explain your reasoning!

-Submitted by J. Floyd

For more information or material for your answers, you can explore the original story this article was inspired by here: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/federal_judge_strikes_down_floridas_voting_restoration_process_for_felons/

[projectrealnv]

Righting the Wrongs in Florida Rights Restoration

The right to vote is a given liberty to all U.S citizens. This said anything given can be taken away. A felony conviction can cause a citizen to lose this precious right. In Florida, felons who have served their time have struggled to obtain their voting rights back. After taking their fight to Federal Court, things may have gotten better for people who’ve paid their debt to society.

Before the federal lawsuit, Florida’s felons would have to go before an Executive Clemency Board and request that their voting rights be restored.  Despite being a voter-elected position, Florida’s Governor is one of the people who have a seat on the state’s Executive Clemency Board.

Governor Scott had been the head panel member of the Board by nine people with past felonies.   They decided to sue for their rights back, and used one incident in particular to make their case:

At one point, Scott had restored the voting rights of a white man who had cast an illegal ballot in 2010 (an election during which he had voted for Scott - or so he claimed during the hearing which the Governor was present at).  Around the same time, Scott had denied five other requests, with four of those requests coming from African-Americans. With Scott being a touted-Republican and most of Florida’s African Americans being registered Democrats, the Governor’s judgment and use of power were brought into question by the lawsuit.

Politics aren’t supposed to play into the decision to restore voter rights. Florida’s intended design of the system was one where the Clemency Board reviews applicants eligible for restoration based if they pass the criteria. Eligibility is available five years after completion of a sentence with full payment of restitution. Soon after the Office of Executive Clemency inspect the applicant and decide from a range of factors the possible acceptance of restoration.

 U.S District Judge Mark Walker’s questioned Scott’s “unfettered discretion in restoring voting rights”. The Judge’s decision in Federal Court ruled Florida’s right restoration system in violation of the 1st and 14th amendments.  Now as a result of the lawsuit, Governor Scott is the state’s first to have restrictions placed on his role in restoring felons’ rights to vote.  

In defense of Florida’s practices, Scott’s communication director stated:“The discretion of the clemency board over the restoration of felons’ rights in Florida has been in place for decade[s] and overseen by multiple governors.”

Florida’s restoration system will now undergo changes as a result of Judge Walker’s ruling, and the nine people involved in the lawsuit will once again be able to attempt to restore their voting rights.

Questions to Consider:

Nine people who filed this case to report issues with the process of rights restorations in Florida. They didn't believe in the justice of that system, and the judge ended up ruling in their favor.  In his decision, the judge cited Florida's state government for violating  the 1st and 14th amendments which lead to his final decision.

1.a) In what ways could Florida have violated these amendments? Do you agree or disagree with the Judge’s claim that these violations occurred?

1. b) The nine people were also burdened with the financial cost of paying for their case. Are they eligible for any kind of compensation for the expenses they took on, now that the case seems to have been decided in their favor? Tell us what laws support your answer.

1.c) The federal court had to intervene to establish balance for the restoration process in Florida because of the potential bias a governor may have.  With this restriction in place, how much authority does Florida have when it comes to returning right to their citizens, and is that too much or too little authority for the state to have?

2.a) A 2016 survey led statisticians to estimate that 1.68 million Floridians had lost their voting rights. These statistics differ around the country.  How many people in Nevada have lost their voting rights this year so far, and what about in the past 10 years?

2.b) How would someone in Nevada get their voting rights restored and how is that process different than the one in Florida?

3) As you’ve just learned, a citizens lose certain rights after being convicted of a felony. Once they’ve served their sentences, many of these people try to reform their lives to become better than they were before. Even though they’ve ‘served their time’, some will continue to experience ongoing punishment when some of their rights remain revoked (until they take additional steps to have some of those rights restored).   Does restricting felons’ rights after they’ve served out their sentences do enough to help them learn from their mistake, or does the policy of not instantly restoring their rights (like the right to vote) after they’ve been released from prison go too far? Explain your reasoning!

-Submitted by J. Floyd

For more information or material for your answers, you can explore the original story this article was inspired by here: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/federal_judge_strikes_down_floridas_voting_restoration_process_for_felons/

[projectrealnv]

Welcome to Volcano Land

Hawaii is known for a number of landscapes like beautiful beaches and volcanoes (including three active ones!) With one currently erupting there is a great chance that lava could reach the ocean. When it reaches the sea, the lava cools down and hardens creating more land called lava extensions.

This geological event leads us to a pretty interesting legal question: Since it was created by a natural event, who exactly owns this new land? Before we look for an answer, let’s get some background on where this debate began:

In 1955 a volcano called Kilauea erupted and created over 7.9 acres of new land. A local family purchased previously-existing land next to where the lava extension had formed. The new owners assumed that they had full rights to the recently created parts, and not just the initial land they purchased.   They even paid property taxes and planted trees on it! 

Following an eruption in the same area in 1960, the issue of who the land really belonged to ended up being taken to court.   Hawaii’s State Supreme Court ended up ordering the land owners to leave the lava-extension, and then issued the land-rights for the lava extension to the state.

The court ruled that the land created by the volcanic activity was for the “use and enjoyment of all the people”; instead of only allowing one family or person to use the land as they please, everyone gets to use it!.

Since the court ruling established that land created by lava belongs to the state, that meant that all of the land created by Kilauea’s eruption in 1955 belongs to the state of Hawaii. As a result, it was not just the one family and their bit of land that was affected by the court case’s outcome.

 Essay Question Time!

Explain your answers, don’t just reply with yes or no! Essay Question 1:

Do you feel like the court ruled the right way?  Should a person who lives near lava-created land have the first chance to purchase it from the state before the government can decide to do something else with the new property?  Would your opinion change if person wanting to purchase the lava-extended land lived in a house 20 feet away?  Would it matter how long they’d been there – say….20 years?  

Essay Question 2: In consideration of the questions brought up in number 1 above, tell us – Is a court ruling good enough, or should specific-laws be created to manage lava extensions in Hawaii?  If the court ruling seems good enough to you, tell us why there shouldn’t be laws that are more specific.  If the court ruling isn’t good enough, tell us what laws you would create and why you would shape them that way.

Essay Question 3: What about the government though?  Hawaii’s State Supreme Court ruled the land was created for the “use and enjoyment of all the people”.  Based on the wording of the court ruling, should the government be allowed to sell the new land to a business or individual, or should it be forced to use the land for a park, community center, or something along those lines?  Tell us what you think and why you feel that way.    

 You can find more info about Hawaiian volcanic eruptions creating land and the ownership debate that follows here:

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/ywen3y/who-owns-the-new-land-created-by-a-volcano-in-hawaii-kilauea-big-island

 Contributed by - J. Plummer

[yourdayincourtblog]

Terror & Tyranny at the Theme Park: Family Assaulted at Six Flags

Amusement parks go above and beyond to entertain their guests during Halloween each year.  In Fright Fest at Six Flags, everyone is up for a good scare. The extra scares are appreciated, but the fall season also seems to bring an increase in bad behavior by some park attendees.  What nobody wants is to come home injured or assaulted, but unfortunately, that fear became a reality for one innocent family.

The family - an elderly couple and their 12 year old son - was attempting to ride one of the thrill rides at the park. While waiting in line, a group of friends cut in front of the family.  Skipping over the fact that the group had cut in front of them, the woman asked the group to at least stop using unpleasant language around her child.

That is when an attack began.

The 12 year old boy was physically seized upon by the group that had cut in front of his family. The mother and father attempted to intervene, but were quickly overwhelmed by the sizable group.  The family continued to be assaulted with punches, kicks, and stomps by their attackers until they submitted to the violence and fell to the ground.

Security at Six Flags broke up the attack quickly after a passersby reported the incident.  The attackers spread out in an attempt to escape, but fortunately most of them were prevented from getting away after security cornered them in the parking lot.  

Local police reported to the scene, and a total of nine suspects were arrested & charged.   Later on, the city’s police chief commented that more suspects may have gotten away.  With this concern in mind, the police urged anyone with evidence to submit it to them. As the police chief explained “We know there’s a video out there. People had their phones out, but we have not gotten any additional video yet.”

Following the incident the family was rushed off and received care for their injuries, though eventually all three of them were discharged.  

You can learn more and read the original story here:  https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/frightening-fest-family-attacked-beaten-by-teenagers-at-six-flags/ Questions & Conversation Part 1: Amusement parks have a lot of discretion in deciding what they allow to occur on their property.  They have a duty to protect those who come, which is why they deal with high safety standards and inspections for their rides.   The parks also allow a wide range of people to come in and enjoy themselves though.  

1.A) Is the process to enter an amusement park too easy?  

1.B) Should Six Flags be held financially or criminally responsible for the family’s injuries? What makes them responsible or not responsible?   1.C.i) If you think Six Flags is responsible, what can they do to prevent attacks like these in the future?   1.C.ii) If you don’t believe they’re responsible, what laws absolve them of that responsibility?  

Part 2:  Research your response! 

2) The family of the incident experienced emotional and physical damage from the attack.  What consequences will the assailants that were caught face?

Part 3:  According to the park, attacks like these are uncommon, “This is rare.” was the official line from park representatives, yet still the park was prepared for possible incidents like these, having doubled security patrols during holiday seasons.  Meanwhile, even with the double patrols, not all of the assailants were detained. 

Consider the fact that some of the suspects were able to get away and that police are hoping cell phone footage will help identify the remaining suspects.  That means the park didn’t have sufficient security camera coverage to identify all of the assailants.  With that in mind….

3.A) Should the family place blame on Six Flags for negligence based on the failure of it’s video security?

3.B) Should seasonal events like this continue when the parks know they pose a risk of an increase in violent or otherwise troubling incidents?

3.C) Some of the attackers in the incident were minors.  Assuming their parents weren’t with them in the park, should the park be held responsible for allowing large groups of minors to be there without proper supervision?

3.D) What rules should be made for youth at parks, and should there be laws establishing standards for these rules (explain your answer - why or why not)?

3.E) Should security keep a closer eye on young adults at parks? What would lead them to be to strike out like this in such a large force?

  - Submitted by J. Floyd

[projectrealnv]

Red is the New Black

Fashion designers often have a unique distinction on their products- a look or style that they are known for- and Christian Louboutin is no exception. For over 25 years Louboutin has made the bottoms of his fancy dress shoes an unmistakable vivid red and now there is question of whether or not he can trademark the color. His company had even trademarked “the color red (Pantone 18 1663TP) applied to the sole of a shoe” (like the shoes in the picture above).

In 2012, his company filed a lawsuit against Dutch company Van Haren that had started selling high heels with red soles similar to his. Louboutin filed the lawsuit claiming that the shoes “infringed on his brand’s trademark for footwear”,   (meaning the red soles on fancy dress shoes).

The other company (Van Hare) was forced to stop selling their red-soled shoes after Louboutin sued them for trademark infringement.  However the brand’s lawyers weren’t having it, and fought the case until it reached the European Court of Justice (meaning the case was heard by several lower courts first).

Under European Union law, shapes typically cannot be trademarked (so the design of a shoe might not be able to be legally protected, but a specific logo of a company still could be).  According to a court official, Louboutin’s red soles are part of a shape (and not something like a logo).  Because of the rules about shapes, his request for trademark protection could be refused.

Fashion designers fighting over colors in court might seem very European, but America has seen its share of legal battles over colors too!  For example, in 2014 the United States Federal Court decided that AT&T was no longer allowed to use certain shades of pink after a lawsuit with T-Mobile.

AT&T had come out with a new service called Aio wireless that used a shade of plum in all of its advertising.  While it wasn’t the exact same color as T-Mobile’s better-known magenta, it was close enough for a lawsuit to be filed  by T-Mobile (and won).

CONSIDER THIS: No matter how the court case turned out, should Louboutin be able to trademark soles of shoes with a specific shade of red?   Maybe you don’t care about fashion, but what if Nike made a sweet pair of red-soled running kicks: Should Louboutin be able to sue Nike if they did that – why or why not?

IN DEPTH: At what point under law should a design become eligible to be trademarked? What if a color does become eligible to be trademarked, who should get the rights to the color in cases like Louboutin vs. Van Haren?

Let us know what you think in the comments and you can read more about the issue in The New York Times here:  https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/06/business/christian-louboutin-shoes-red-trademark.html  - Contributed by J. Plummer