Final Examination, Essay Example

Question 1

Liquor advertising on television should not be in violation of the First Amendment because alcohol is not a legally banned substance in the United States. If the case were to involve an illegal substance such as marijuana, the circumstances would be different. However, alcohol is a different story, and therefore, should not be banned. These advertisements do not violate the First Amendment and the ability to generate freedom of expression. As long as these advertisements are truthful and responsible, there is an opportunity to convey the importance of responsibility in alcohol use. Therefore, these advertisements should not be banned on this premise. Therefore, it is important to allow liquor advertisers to promote as such using responsible advertising methods and messages to adults over 21 years of age.

The efforts made by advertisers must reflect the importance of new perspectives to ensure that advertising is, above all else, truthful and supportive of the message that is being established. At the same time, it is necessary to establish a greater understanding of how the First Amendment might be infringed upon in this manner. Based upon the principles of advertising, telling the truth in these ads must be the primary focus of the advertising team. Therefore, they must reflect upon the needs of clients in a manner that is respectful and appropriate. It is important to live by these principles in the world of advertising, and this case is no different, as alcohol is a form of drug that does lead to impairment under some conditions. These elements must be provided in any case that involves alcohol and the messages that are being introduced on television, on the Internet, on the radio, and in other outlets. The primary elements of alcohol advertising must also convey the challenges of new directions in order to ensure that alcohol advertising is appropriate and ethically responsible.

Alcohol advertising should not be banned because it conveys the importance of selling a product. Products are sold through many different types of advertisements, and alcohol is no different. However, the approach must be effective yet provide a responsible message that will encourage individuals over the age of 21 to consume alcohol with extreme caution and with respect of those around them. This should include the requirement to abstain from any type of driving while under the influence. These efforts will support the continued success of advertising for alcohol that also supports the legal requirements of these ads. These elements are critical to the success of alcohol advertising in a manner that is consistent with safety at all times. It is necessary to evaluate these concerns and to recognize the importance of different alternatives that alcohol advertisers have in these cases in order to ensure that their ads are appropriate and effective in getting the message across.

Finally, alcohol advertising should be legal and not be banned simply because it does not violate the First Amendment. Alcohol is a legal substance for adults over the age of 21 and requires responsible forms of advertising. If this is achieved, there is no reason why these ads should not be made public. It is expected that these conditions will be taken seriously by alcohol companies in order to satisfy the needs of the legal system and of those patrons who purchase alcohol items for consumption. These elements must convey truth in advertising and success in promoting these products in a successful manner.

Question 2

Based upon the facts provided in the case, it is important to determine whether or not the lawsuit brought forth by Dr. Wong is appropriate and valid in its claims. The use of any website where freedom of public expression is permitted, i.e. an individual can say almost whatever they want, must be considered in this context as simply an opinion that is not meant to condone any type of retaliation or other type of behavior that could arise. This case establishes a unique understanding of the different perspectives that are relevant to freedom of speech and the First Amendment and whether or not the defendant is protected under the rights set forth by the First Amendment. In applying the Categories of Unprotected Expression, and specifically, Subversive Advocacy and the Brandenburg Test, it is unlikely that any intentional lawless action has occurred or will occur in the defendant’s case (Week 1 Unprotected Speech 1). In applying these principles, it is not at all a likelihood that the defendant sought to break any laws or to commit any crimes with his words; it was merely an opinion and was likely a result of his anger and frustration at the time (Week 1 Unprotected Speech 1).

Another perspective to consider is that Yelp, the website that was responsible for allowing the review to be posted, should not be held liable in this case due to the inner workings of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which states that “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” (Media Negligence-SOF 16). Under these conditions, Yelp should not be held responsible for the reviews that are posted on its website and that it is up to the individual posting the information to exercise sound judgment and decency when expressing his or her views in a public fashion (Media Negligence-SOF 16). In this libel case, it is not the responsibility of Yelp or any other website to “filter” the words of their users when it is not clear that any intent to pose harm to another person is not recognized (New York Times Co. v. United States 1). In this context, it is important for the judge to clearly ascertain the role of the defendant and whether or not his words are considered libel or slander against the plaintiff because this decision will make a difference in how the issues is observed and addressed in the outcomes of the case.

For this case, the plaintiff believes that the words publicly stated by the defendant may be harmful to her business practice and to her ability to attract and retain new patients. However, it is her word against the defendant’s because she stated that her views regarding the use of silver fillings were made explicitly clear at the time of the treatment. Although the plaintiff believed that her actions were appropriate, she nonetheless sought damages for libel because the scathing review, in her estimation, would ruin her business over time as soon as word got out about the review and its contents. However, it is believed that the client did not intend to physically cause any harm to the plaintiff; rather, he sought to warn others of the type of treatment that she provided to her patients. Therefore, it is important for the judge to weigh all options in the case and to consider how a decision in favor of the plaintiff might make a significant difference in the future of libel cases, particularly when there is a precedent that might be set forth with the outcome of this case. In this case, the judge should perhaps considering throwing out the libel suit because the defendant did not mean to pose any physical harm to the client or to break any laws, and in this case, an opinion is merely an opinion and is not fact. It is the responsibility of the judge to take the steps that are necessary to make a favorable decision and to determine how to best move forward in order to make a fair and appropriate decision for this case.

Question 3

The conventional versus the critical views of law represent a challenge to the legal system because they influence different sides of a case, often in a negative light. The arguments made for or against either side of this discussion warrant further consideration and evaluation. The conventional view of law is described as a “level playing field” that is not supposed to take sides or to have any preconceived notions of a given case or any other knowledge that might be construed as influential in a given case. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate this perspective in the context of the ability to remain impartial and without any prejudgments regarding the facts of a case and the potential outcomes. On the other hand, it is widely known that in some cases where wealth, affluence, or other indicators are present, it is necessary to evaluate the different perspectives that result when an individual persuades a member of the legal system to make a decision in favor of one side.

In the case involving Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp v. Public Service Commission (Brief 6), a number of factors must be considered that represent the best interests of the company and its ability to advertise as part of its routine practice. This case reflects the importance of the First and the Fourteenth Amendments in enabling companies such as Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. to have the freedom to advertise at their own choosing so as not to infringe upon their ability to be effective in exercising their rights to advertise at their own choosing (Brief 6). In this context, it is important to determine if the suit filed by the company had any real influence on the decision that was made and if any special favors or otherwise were considered in the outcomes of this case.

In Eimann v. Soldier of Fortune Magazine, Inc., the publication published an advertisement that led to the eventual murder of Sandra Black (Brief 4). It was proposed by the plaintiffs in the case, Black’s son and mother, that the magazine should be held liable for printing the so-called derogatory advertisement, thereby enabling Robert Black to subsequently murder his wife as a result of the ad (Brief 4). In this context, it appears that the advertisement included such words as “dirty work” and “high risk contracts,” whereby Robert Black construed that he could contact Hearn to perform the requested acts (Brief 4). This case is not unique because it reflects how publishers and writers are able to provide information to the masses in a very public way and attract attention for it, such as the example provided. It is more important than ever to address these challenges and to consider the role of different perspectives from a legal point of view because this case is somewhat perplexing in this regard.

This case is challenging because it is difficult to distinguish between different approaches and the role of critical law in this process. It does not appear that critical role had any real role in this case, particularly because the original decision was reversed. One might argue that the first judge and decision might have been influenced by different factors that could have led to the decision that was made; however, this is not able to be proven and does not provide any real evidence to support this claim. At the same time, one might argue that by reversing the original decision, the judge might have been influenced by the magazine’s personnel in order to have the decision reversed. However, this cannot be proven and does not reflect any real persuasion or influence on behalf of the magazine. Therefore, this case appears to stand on its own without any real dependence or influences from the magazine or from the plaintiffs to the case. It is expected that in cases where conventional versus critical must be considered, there is a much greater risk for fraud and even negative outcomes if there are different influences that occur from the outside that have a direct impact on the case. It is important for judges to remain level-headed and clear in their decisions and to not be dissuaded by different individuals who might attempt to enable the decision to go in their favor, as this is construed as unfavorable by much of the general public.

Works Cited

Brief #4: Eimann v. Soldier of Fortune Magazine, Inc. 880 F.2d 830 (5^th Cir. 1989). 1-3.

Brief #6: Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, 447 U.S. 557. 1-2.

Brief #8: New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971). 1-2.

University of San Francisco. Media Negligence. Power Point Presentation, 1-16.