Freedom of Press vs Defamation Suit

Rolling Stone magazine published an article in November of 2014 regarding a reported gang rape by members of a fraternity at University of Virginia. The magazine quickly retracted the article after it was met with opposition and the possibility of false accusations. Now the fraternity, Phi Kappa Psi, is publicly planning to pursue legal action against Rolling Stone.

The fraternity claimed that the magazine failed to properly research the story before publishing, claiming defamation. They claim the story accused members of a crime they did not commit. The problem with this potential lawsuit is that their claim of defamation may not be solid enough to support itself in court. In order to proceed with the lawsuit, they would have to allow examination of all of their activities, exposing private details that many members would not want to be made public. In addition to this, they may have to prove that the magazine actually committed a crime (something which would be nearly impossible.)

With all of the public speculation and conversation surrounding rapes at universities throughout the country, it may not have been a smart move for the fraternity to bring forward a lawsuit so many months after the original article was posted. Although the fraternity’s reputation may be damaged, by doing this they have voluntarily brought themselves and the unwanted attention associated with the case back into the public eye.

Access the original NYTimes article here.

Advertisements

Bigot or Benevolant

A law recently surfaced in Indiana is seen by many as a way to legally discriminate against LGBT couples. Others argued that this law is simply a way to protect religious freedom for all in Indiana. Many emotional protests have occurred since this law has been brought to public attention and many political and public figures have gotten involved in the debate. Hillary Clinton, George Takei, the N.C.A.A. and Tim Cook have all expressed concern with the law’s ability to allow discrimination against gays.

Following Indiana’s ruling against same-sex marriage (that was subsequently overturned by federal court), this law is hitting many people in a very personal place. It seems that both democrats and republicans all over the country have polar opinions on the issue and law at hand.

This law has even triggered boycotts by many big companies and events who are now threatening to leave the state and bring their dollars and business elsewhere if the law is not repealed.

My question is: do you think all of the anger and emotions surrounding this issue are justified? Is this law really giving Americans permission to discriminate; or is it really an innocent law put in place to protect religious freedom of all?

Read the original NYTimes article here.

Plane Crash Phenomena

The last few years will soon be looked back on by future historians as the period of aerial failures and bad luck. On March 24^th, 2015 (Tuesday)- a plane operated by Germanwings crashed in the French Alps. The plane was an Airbus A320 on route from Barcelona to Dusseldorf when it crashed in southern France. The plane was carrying 144 passengers and six crewmembers and unfortunately there are no survivors. At the moment, the specific reasons for the crash are unknown.

If you look back on the past few years, you’ll see an unfortunately pattern of plane crashes and instances. On March 8^, 2014, a Malaysia airlines flight flying from Malaysia to Beijing disappeared. This plane has still not been located. On July 17, 2014 another Malaysia airlines flight from Amsterdam to Malaysia got shot down over the Ukraine. On December 28^, 2014 a n Indonesia AirAsia flight traveling from Indonesia to Singapore crashed into the water (killing all on board).

In addition to this, on March 5, 2014 a Delta flight skidded off the runway at the LaGuardia airport. Do you think there are any factors that contributed to the seemingly large amount of airline issues in the last year? Should there be a reform in the industry to make sure that passengers are safe while flying in the future? Do these crashes make you feel less inclined to fly?

Read more details about the Germanwings crash here.

Robert Durst is Jinxed

Robert Durst (age 71) is a real estate millionaire known primarily in the public eye as a suspect in the disappearance of his wife Kathie McCormack in 1982 and the murder of Susan Berman in 2000. In addition to this, in 2001 in Galveston, Texas, Durst admitted to killing and dismembering his neighbor Morris Black, but was acquitted during trial. Durst was not charged with this murder For 33 years Durst has been the center of an investigation by the FBI, but they have never uncovered enough evidence to arrest and charge him. During this time they have keep a close watch on him, just in case any new evidence arose.

HBO has been filming a documentary “The Jinx” in which they cover his story. On Monday, Durst was charged with first-degree murder of Berman. How- after all of these years of suspicion- was Durst finally pinned with a murder charge? As he was filming the documentary, Durst muttered words that may change his fate from the bathroom- all were caught on microphone.

“What the hell did I do? Killed them all, of course.”

It is almost incredible that a man with so many skeletons in his closet has managed to be free for so many years. His lawyer claims that his statement above should not be looked too deep into, but many argue that it speaks for himself. Maybe after so many years (33 to be exact) of running and hiding from horrible things he did, he decided it was time to be freed of the guilt. Or maybe Durst is actually innocent. Unfortunately for Durst, all signs point to his guilt, and the possibility of the rest of his life spent in prison.

Read the original NY Times article here. 

E-Mail Conspiracy

Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013 under President Barack Obama. Now seen as one of the most prominent democratic hopefuls for the 2016 presidential election, a lot of controversy is surrounding her. Just recently information surfaced that has shook the strong foundation on which she stands- Hillary Clinton used private e-mail while she was Secretary of State. While most of us may look at this and think “so what?”, many citizens and officials are up in arms about it. There are theories rounding the country of ulterior motives, terrorist connections and ultimate conspiracy. The bottom line of this whole debacle is: will her use of personal e-mail take her out of the running for president?

There are two sides to every story. Many argue that it is irrelevant, especially considering no one had brought this to the medias attention before now (a critical time for her future). They say that this is being brought up to prevent her chances of running in the presidential election. The other side argues that it is a huge issue, one that needs to be looked at seriously and is something that could completely disqualify her from the race. What do you think? Is Clinton’s use of private e-mail while in The White House really something that should raise red flags, or is it merely an overlooked occurrence that means nothing for the future of our country?

Check out the original article in the NY Times here.

The Right to Selfie

The phenomena of the selfie has hit the world by storm in the past few years. With a new generation that are obsessed with themselves, we find the selfie more prevalent than any other form of photograph. According to research that Google presented at Google IO 2014, 93 million selfies are taken every day. In addition to this, we check our phones over 100 billion times per day. It is becoming increasingly obvious that technology is what rules the world today. Ask a teenager to go a week without their phone and they will practically melt like the Wicked Witch of the West. We have become incredibly dependent on social media to document every moment on our lives, and on our phones for supplementing those moments with photos.

Now certain organizations throughout the country are infringing on our God-given right to selfie. According to the New York Times and the Washington Post, the Smithsonian Museum has now banned selfie sticks. This selfie-banning epidemic is spreading rapidly; the Smithsonian is not the only one. The Hirshhorn Museum in Washington, the Museum of Fine Arts in Houston, and the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York are also members of the selfie stick reform. The issue at hand, according to the chief digital officer at the Met Sree Sreenivasan, is that selfie sticks invade other patrons’ personal space. So what does this mean for the selfie-obsessed citizens of America? How are we supposed to document our life-changing trip to the Smithsonian Museum? Do we have to resort to taking traditional selfies with the Mona Lisa, or should we organize a revolt?

Congratulations, You Have Been Accepted. . . JK.

Imagine you are applying for graduate schools. You prepare for years, making sure your G.P.A. is on point, you work hard to build a good resume and you volunteer extensively to make sure you stand out from the crowd. You submit your perfectly structured essays (designed to touch your heart while stimulating your mind) and off go your applications. Now all you can do is anxiously wait for responses, the responses that hold the rest of your future in their hands.

You finally get a reply; you have been accepted to one of the top schools in the country! You are ecstatic and quickly call your mom and significant other to tell them the good news. You even being to look for apartments. A few days later you received a frightful email, you were accepted in error! You were actually rejected. Your life, hopes and dreams shatter instantly and you are left in a puddle of tears.

Does this seem a little outrageous? Well this is exactly what happened to 800 Carnegie Mellon hopefuls. The university sent out 800 accidental acceptance letters to people who were not in fact accepted. After realizing the scope of their error they retracted the acceptances and informed the hopefuls that they were indeed rejected. Now should a school renowned for it’s amazing technology have had such a foolish technological error? What do you think the school should have done? Should they have upheld their acceptances or maybe they should have avoided the error to begin with.

Read the original story here.

Internships or Intern-rips?

Internships. Something that almost every post-secondary student in the United States of America either looks forward to or fears. Why is this you might ask? Years ago internships were viewed as a valuable asset to have on your resume, but not essential to gaining a job and finishing a college education. Now internships are no longer viewed as a valuable bonus on your resume, but as near essential to gain a job post graduation.

There are many different layers to typical internships. There are some internships that are paid and offer you a temporary job and experience in a firm while you gain credit for school. There are some internships that are unpaid but offer free housing and food so you can survive while you slave for a company for free. And there are the worst kinds of internships and possibly the most popular kind… the study abroad internship. Why are these internships so terrible you may ask? Because not only are you expected to work for free, you are also expected to pay a huge amount of money to work for free.

So if they are such a rip off, how have these internships gained so much popularity? Because they offer an excuse for college students to justify travelling around the world. Pay a mere $10,000+ to work for free and gain minimal college credits! Are these students really gaining any actual real life experience while traipsing throughout Europe? Should these study abroad internships even be considered an internship? In my humble (non study abroaded) opinion these internships are completely useless and a waste of money. They are merely an excuse to travel in Europe while claiming something on your resume. A true internship should be an earned experience with actual real life job experience. Although there are a few applications where these international jobs are worth their cost (for international affairs majors and such) but for the average college student, their money and time might be better spent locally.

Read the original article here.

Serious News? Non-Traditional Media Websites Land Interview with Obama

Recently some non-traditional news sources have managed to land interviews with the nations most sought after interview candidate – the President of the United States, Barack Obama. Newspapers such as the New York Times or the Washington Post are constantly vying for the attention of the President for even minutes to give them valuable insight into the developing future of America. Fox News and CNN spend months trying to get a one-on-one with Obama so they can to ask the questions most Americans (their consumers) are dying to get answers to.

So why with this high demand that the traditional media sources have for time with Obama are non-traditional websites such as Buzzfeed and Vox getting interviews instead? Buzzfeed is a website known for their viral posts mostly involving a myriad of useless lists about weird food items and flashbacks to the 1990s. Vox is a general news website that takes the approach of pop media first (Sam Smith at the Grammy’s before Jordan’s military action). What benefit does society get from having these low-grade websites interview Obama? Will we really benefit from a list titled “22 Things That Obama Hates”?

Buzzfeed is asking their readers to submit questions they want to ask Obama via other non-traditional media applications such as Instagram and Snapchat. Is this really the most successful way for Obama to reach the young citizens? Or will using this form of media create a negative image surrounding the seriousness of Obama and the objectives he has set? I am all for utilizing social media (as Obama did during his campaign in 2008) but is this taking it one step too far?

Click here to view the original article in the NY Times.

Freedom vs Protection

In October radical Islamists killed two Canadian soldiers in Ottawa. Now with the recent terrorist attack in Paris, the prime minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, proposed legislation that would increase the power and role of Canada’s spy services and CIA. This legislation would allow the court to have the power to remove online postings and would also increase police powers.

Canada is a country that in the past has only taken part in military action as a peacekeeping nation. Their standing army may not be huge, but they are well loved throughout the world and are not normally seen as a threat or an enemy. While reading this article (and as a Canadian) two questions came to my mind. Is this a wise move for the Prime Minister to make? And to what extent do we have to continue to give our freedoms up for protection?

Taking a nation that is known globally for peacekeeping and kindness; and involving them in the current terrorist attacks may not be the wisest move for the country. Much of Canada’s success in international affairs comes from their conscious choice to involve themselves in the necessary issues (such as world wars and when peacekeeping is necessary in conflicts) and not involve themselves in more trivial issues. Now this isn’t to say that the recent terrorist attacks are trivial in nature. To take a country that has kept civil ties with the majority of the world and to openly announce their concern about the terrorists may place a target on their backs that was not there originally. If we give the Jihadi terrorists attention, there is a chance that they may give it back.

My second question and thought go back to the basic principle of human rights and freedoms. We all learn in school that as humans we are granted natural rights. In societies run by government, we often sacrifice certain rights and freedoms for protection. For example, we often sacrifice our right to complete privacy to ensure that we are protected from those with bad intentions. Where do we draw the line when it comes to giving up our freedoms? Is allowing the court system to remove online postings in Canada a sign of further protection and freedom we gain, or is it encouraging censorship and discouraging freedom of speech?