Essay on Week 3- Legal, Political, Ethics Dim of Business

IV. Issues: (1) Does the First Amendment's freedom of speech prohibit public figures from recovering damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress?

1. What were the material facts of City of Ontario, California, et al. v Quon, et al. (Ontario v Quon)?

The outcome of the case was that it was submitted to the jury on the theory of breach of contract and misrepresentation (“Case Briefs”). The jury that was on this case found liability on both counts and awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages and $250,000 in punitive damages against each newspaper for misrepresentation. The Court of Appeals set aside the misrepresentation damages, but affirmed the compensatory damages. The State Supreme Court affirmed the setting aside of punitive damages. Also, decided that the compensatory damages were not enforceable under standard breach of contracts theory. In regards to the Supreme Court, it found that, in a majority decision, that against respondent’s claims that it had no jurisdiction. They cited the Orr v Orr case of 1979 of whether the arguments in

1. According to the article, why do the authors think that traditional litigation methods have not been wholly successful in California?

n.d.) In this paper, I will discuss three cases where the defendant was found guilty of

E – Explanation of the Rule of Law (usually by pointing out its application by the courts in similar cases).

The second part of the brief is the facts of the case. This is the summary or background that led to this particular dispute. It resembles a journalist’s report offering only the basic “who, what, where, when, how and why” of the trial and case record leading up to the present appeal. Included in this is a brief statement of the plaintiff’s argument and the defendant’s argument.

Background of the case: The issue of the case was that Ogden sued Gibbons when he started operating a ferry service. The defendant said that his ferry was licensed and that he had the right to operate his ferry in that location as well.

The Decision of the Court: Found in favor of petitioners. Opinion given by Judge Fortas

Individual rights versus the good of the community, is an issue that America has struggled with for a long time. Mr. Erskine Halls delivered his speech in front of the Association of Newspaper Editors’ conference regarding his concern about the violations of the “First Amendment to the Constitution. To begin with, the “U.S Supreme Court has just issues its ruling in the case of Near v Minnesota” by attempting to void Minnesota’s “press gag law.”

Freedom of speech is a constitutional right that all of us hold dear, everyone uses it daily or not at all in some cases. Teachers however use it just as much, and there have been quite a few court cases establishing what rights to free speech teachers have. Examining the pros and cons of this situation regarding Ann Griffin was dismissed based on concerns from a statement regarding African-Americans and how the court should rule in this case. In the first proof the argument for her dismissal on the basis that she would not be able to treat others fairly based on what she said. Secondly, being that she would not be able to work effectively with her colleagues. On the other spectrum of the argument, her right to free speech and what are the limits regarding her free speech as a teacher? While finally coming down to her right to an opinion with her free speech in that workspace. Tying together what is ultimately the ruling on her case.

R: The very famous case of O'Brien (1968), the Court for the first time found that expressive speech not always protected by the First Amendment. The court also found that burning a flag, and burning the draft card, even if both considered to be 'an expressive speech » (Hopkins,

Bryan was originally declared guilty by the British Columbia Court. The Columbia Court charged Bryan with $1000. The case was later appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada on the basis that the decision violated Bryan’s freedom of expression guaranteed by the s.2 of the Charter of

The hypotheticals set forth here cover a variety of constitutional issues, ranging from the rights of U.S. citizens to executive privilege to separation of powers. These cases can be considered in the context of previous Supreme Court cases and the content of the Constitution itself.

On the several points raised by the defendant, the Privy Council gave the following decision: