Ethical Topic
Choose one (1) case below and provide a summary (approx 150 words) supporting either the plaintiff or the defendant based on the facts of the case and your interpretation of the law. You need to do some research on the case selected and provide links to that research which assisted you in your decision. Check at least 2 other sources as part of your independent research. Respond to another student’s posting for full credit.
Information Technology: Free Speech and Video Games
California enacted a state statute that prohibited the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. The act covered games that included killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being. Members of the video games and software industries challenged enforcement of the act, alleging that the state law violated their constitutional free speech rights. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the California act violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that California had singled out the purveyors of video games for disfavored treatmentat least when compared to booksellers, cartoonists, and movie producersand had given no persuasive reason why. Brown, Governor of California v. Entertainment Merchants Association (Supreme Court of the United States, 2011).
Environmental Pollution: United States v. Maury
The Atlantic States Cast Iron Pipe Company pumped contaminated wastewater into the Delaware River and burned drums of waste paint in the plants furnace at night, causing chemical air pollution. Company’s management personnel were charged with criminal violations of the Clean Water Act, and were charged with lying to investigators. The U.S. district court convicted the defendants and sentenced them to prison terms. The defendants appealed, but the U.S. court of appeals (2012) affirmed the judgment of the U.S. district courting.
Sovereign Immunity: OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs
Carol Sachs, a resident of Berkeley, California, purchased a Eurail pass over the internet from The Rail Pass Experts, a Massachusetts-based travel agent. Sachs arrived at the Innsbruck, Austria train station planning to use her Eurail pass to ride an OBB train to Prague, Czech Republic. As she attempted to board the train, Sachs fell from the platform onto the tracks. OBBs moving train crushed her legs, both of which had to be amputated above the knee. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Sachs action is based upon the railways conduct in Innsbruck, Austria, and therefore the suit falls outside of the commercial activity exception and is barred by sovereign immunity (Supreme Court of the United States, 2015).
Please respond to the following discussions within a paragraph at least 6 sentences ( response to Shannon)
The case I chose for this weeks discussion is Free Speech and Video Games. In the case Brown, Governor of California vs Entertainment Merchants Association the US Supreme Court ruled that the California law prohibiting the sale or rental of violent video games to minors violated the first amendment. Although this is hard to say since I am a mother, I reluctantly agree with the Supreme Court and the defendant on this case especially after doing some research. Since video games have not been around for a long time, I felt the best place to start is with motion pictures. Turns out the rating system, which was created more than 30 years ago, was solely to help people understand the content. Prior to the rating system however, the US Supreme Court ruled in 1915 that movies were a business pure and simple and thus not due the kind of constitutional protections books and newspapers enjoyed (Hughes, 2006). The MPAA rating system was then formed to help inform viewers of content they would be subjected to. Today, the rating system still continues and there arent any legal actions against whether a child can see a rated R movie but the organization such as AMC or Marcus Theatre can say they will not allow a child in a move under the age of 17 without a parents approval. The same goes for video games. The ratings follow a similar system in which similar type of behaviors will determine the rating and thus provide information to a buyer most likely an adult on whether it is something they want their child to purchase. Barring a child buying because of the content is against the first amendment or freedom of speech. These ratings are not legally binding but a guidance to help parents make the right decisions.
Post 2 response to Helen post at least a paragraph
The case I have chosen is OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs. In this case a Californian resident named Carol Sachs went to Austria and had a horrible accident at the train station. Both her legs were amputated because of the rain running over her legs. She then attempted to sue the the Austrian train station by using the loophole that she bought her ticket here in the U.S. This tactic however, did not work in her favor as the Supreme court ruled that she could not sue the Austrian railroad in federal district court because of the Foreign sovereign immunities act.
After some research I did find that although it is very sad that about what happened to Ms. Sachs, I stand behind the ruling. Her purchasing the ticket in the U.S is not a valid loophole to suing a foreign business when the act of her purchasing the ticket is not what actually caused her to have the accident. It was the act of her boarding the train improperly which happened in Austria making the suit invalid. I do think this is unfortunate this occurred, however still invalid for legal actions.
Greenstein, N., & Salvatore, G. (n.d.). OBB Personenverkehr AG V. SACHS. Retrieved March 11, 2021, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/13-1067 (Links to an external site.)
OBB Personenverkehr AG V. SACHS, 577 u.s. ___ (2015). (n.d.). Retrieved March 11, 2021, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/577/13-1067/ (Links to an external site.)
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]