Super Bowl Scandal Analysis

11. Reno v ACLU (501)- the supreme court upheld the lower court’s ruling in June 1997 by unamimously deciding a broad affirmation of free speech rights in cyberspace, arguing that the Internet was more analogous (analogous means comparable) to print media than to television, and thus even indecent material on the internet was entitled to First Amendment protection.

The auctioned Deflategate football, is the only football from either the 2014 AFC Championship game or the Patriot’s Super Bowl win over the Seattle Seahawks that was ever available to the

On January 18, 2015, the New England Patriots faced off against the Indianapolis Colts in the AFC Championship game and proceeded to demoralize them 45-7. After the game a report came out that the Colts had noticed that the air pressure in one of the footballs used in the game was somewhat lower than the league minimum. What ensued was one of the most vexed and frankly ridiculous controversies in NFL history. For months there were disputes both over whether or not the balls were actually under inflated, and later whether or not the team or the quarterback, Tom Brady, knew the balls were tampered with. A massive amount of media coverage was devoted to the argument and the subsequent trial, and in that coverage, many “facts” regarding both the

The NFl is a place where fans can go and forget about their worries but, the NFL has now been corrupted with political opinion and many fans are unhappy about it. The recent stunt is proving nothing to change the causes that is” supposedly” trying to stop. In the blog “Now I have had enough” by Brandon

In March 2012, the NFL distributed sanctions to Saints coaches and front-office staff for their parts in the bounty scandal. Sean Payton was suspended for the entire 2012 season and Gregg Williams was suspended indefinitely. Loomis was suspended for the first eight games of the 2012 season. The Saints were also fined the maximum fine permitted under the league constitution. Commissioner Roger Goodell also took away the Saints second-round draft picks in 2012 and 2013. In May of 2012, the NFL suspended four current or former Saints players that were involved in the bounty scandal. He also gave the league's teams until the end of March 2012 to confirm in writing that they do not have any bounty programs. Teams were also required to confirm that

It said that this Act was in a way creating "adult zones" on the internet and that was constitutional based on the decision in Renton v. Playtime theatres Inc. CDA was not trying to ban "indecent" material, just to separate it, so that minors could not access such material. However, the zoning laws could not be applied to the internet because it is not a physical place, therefore a person who posts information cannot be certain that it will not reach minors, since there is no way to prove if a person is a minor when they are online. #

The article that I chose for this workshop was about how the National Football League is a blunder proof brand. In the article, much of the information that is discussed is in regards to the scandals that have been associated with the league, and how none of these scandals seem to tarnish the league due to how popular the brand is in the United States.

The Super Bowl is not only the pinnacle event of American football, but also the pinnacle event of American sports for the year. This pressure adds a lot of drama and expectations to a simple sporting event, and Super Bowl 52 did not fail to meet these dramatic expectations. A back-and-forth game with fourth down plays, instant replays, and a dazzling climax, Super Bowl 52 surprised me endlessly with every play and dramatic moment throughout the game. The dramatic flow of the game was intense as both teams were gunning on offense.

Much of the act was struck down in a 1997 Supreme Court decision due to it’s conflict with the First Amendment, although it left standing a section similar to that above but with the “intent to annoy or harass”. The judges indicated that the Internet should have those

Since there has not been a ruling in this case, the supporters of the censorship laws had to try and find a way to get the internet censored to children. So in the year 2000, Congress passed the Children's Internet Protection Act, which is aimed at the computers in the schools and libraries that the children would have access to. This law was limited to "only the schools and libraries that participated in certain federal programs such as, receiving federal money for technology". The schools and libraries that received this money were required to "install filtering software on all internet terminals to block access to sites with child pornography, obscene material, and material that is harmful to minors". My opinion on this law is that it is even better than the firs one. They are very similar, as you can tell from their names, there is very little changed in the names of the laws. I think that the sites that a minor can look at should be filtered. This way they cannot look at things that can be harmful to them.

After looking into the opportunity of purchasing an ad slot for Super Bowl LI, I believe that Ford Motor should not purchase a slot. While the Super Bowl provides an excellent opportunity to have a large audience, the costs outweigh the benefits in this era. First is the space cost at $5 million this year. That doesn’t mention production costs which could bring the total cost up to $30 million. Secondly, all of our competitors will be putting ads out which could limit our effectiveness. Our ad and message will have to be perfect to get the reaction we want against the others. Last, 39% of millennials do not have cable T.V. and many people are now skipping ads because of DVR.

Since the internet has been available in schools and libraries in this country, there has been a debate about what should be accessible to users, especially minors. The amount of information disseminated on the world wide web is vast, with some sources valuable for scholarly and personal research and entertainment, and some sources that contain material that is objectionable to some (ie. pornography, gambling, hate groups sites, violent materials). Some information potentially accessible on the internet such as child pornography and obscenity is strictly illegal and is not protected under the First Amendment. Some information available on the internet that may be valuable to some is at the same time perceived to be worthless or

The Bush administration urged the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold a federal law designed to protect minors from sexually explicit materials via World Wide Web (Walsh 1). Internet pornography is "readily

As it is common with any topic as controversial as the censorship of the entire internet, it has drawn a lot of big names on both sides of the fence. On one side of the fence are have the people who are for the bill; this includes many big music and movie companies who say that they are losing billions due to the theft of their intellectual property through rogue sites such as “thepiratebay.org”. On the other side of the bill, there are many of the big internet companies of which are some of the greatest innovators of our time; amongst the companies taking up the opposition you have big names like Google, Facebook, and Twitter. All of these companies are taking up the stance that the new act is unconstitutional and would facilitate the government to be able to censor the flow of information, which is contrary to the First Amendment of the Constitution. Both sides of the debate have a very effective argument and only time will tell which side will win.

The Supreme Court lifted a 1996 act banning virtual child pornography. The six to three ruling, led by Justice Anthony Kennedy, says the law violates First Amendment freedom of speech rights guaranteed to every citizen of the United States of America. Although many free speech advocates are shouting victory, many citizens across the country are lamenting over the loss in the fight against child pornography.