Results tagged “legal” from jsstudios.com

I first heard of the Amethyst Initiative on the way to work this morning, and later found it on Yahoo! via Reditt.

If you haven't heard of it, essentially the initiative addresses the notion that the policy of allowing people to drink ( legally ) once they are 21 years old does not reflect the reality of today's society. The initiative has quite a few signatures. The signatures are representative of a lot of well-known colleges and universities across the US.

However, groups such as M.A.D.D. are openly against the initiative primarily because they believe reducing the age will lead in more teen deaths.

Quite honestly, I can say that I cannot understand why kids as young as 18 can be shipped off to Iraq, have a rifle thrown into their hands and expected to take lives, but yet, cannot sit down in a bar and have a beer.

On the other hand, having gone to college and experienced the social expectation that is prevalent on many campuses - that if you should attend a party you are expected to consume vast quantities of alcohol; that sporting a hangover at your 8 AM class is akin to a badge of honor; that it is cool to be majorly fucked up beyond all recognition; that it is a rite of passage one must accomplish and then decide that it's really quite stupid before they hit bottom or become lifetime alcoholics.

Perhaps it wouldn't be so cool to be fucked up it it wasn't portrayed as cool in movies about college life. It is as obligatory a scene in most college-themed movies to have a scene with underage kids drinking at the most awesome party of the year as it is to have hot coeds romping topless in any other scene. 

In other words - it's our culture stupid.

I've often wondered if this specific case would ever eventually come up. Consider, for a moment, that you are a user at some kind of social content website like YouTube, Flickr or some other. You faithfully upload content that you produce. Somehow or another, the website figures out a way to make money.

Shouldn't you share in that success? Somehow? Someway?

One of the users at YouTube, who applied to YouTube's partner program but was denied, is not exceptionally happy about the outcome. Apparently he has some videos on YouTube and they get pretty good traffic. Ever since YouTube decided to share some of the ad revenue with popular, traffic-generating users, it is possible that people can start getting something back for being a contributing member - if you're selected to be one of the "partners."

Since he was denied a partnership, he is suing Google ( since they purchased YouTube ) and believes he is entitled to some sort of compensation.

I see two sides to this:

First off, social sites like YouTube and Flickr ( to name just a couple ), I believe should give something back. Google paid 1.5 BILLION dollars. They didn't just buy the software and hardware, they bought YouTube for it's popularity. The members of the site ( through their contributions of content ) made the site as popular as it is. Of course, figuring out exactly how the members should be compensated is yet another matter even though using traffic to particular viewings of a specific video is a good place to start.

On the other hand: The people that built YouTube had the foresight and the know-how to build the software, make it scale and promote it in order for it to be as successful as it is. It isn't as if there are no other options to upload and view video on the web.

Either way, it should be an interesting case that ultimately could change the social content sites that we know now.

All I can say is, "It's about stinking time." Finally, someone gets the backbone to take these people to court and kick their stinking butts across the floor. In case you're not familiar, this is the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, KS that likes to go to the funerals of dead soldiers to protest homosexuality. Since I live in Topeka, I have to see these people all the time. It sickens me. Why KS has never really taken a stand against them, I couldn't answer. I haven't lived here all my life. I heard that Westboro handed Topeka's ass to them in a court case quite some time ago, but I don't know the details. However, here's the meat of what happened today:

A Baltimore federal jury awarded nearly $11 million Wednesday to the father of a Marine killed in Iraq, deciding that the family's privacy had been invaded by a Kansas church whose members waved anti-gay signs at the funeral.

Good on ya' Maryland.

I was thinking today, after reading the recent articles about Nicole Richie being sentenced to jail time and it sent the wheels in my braining to spinning. I wonder how much celebrity status has to do with crime and punishment in Hollywood. Of course it goes without saying that celebrities, compared to common, hard-working folks, get off pretty light when they get themselves in trouble. I'm not really going to try and dig up any real reasons of substance why this is true. Could be money . . . could be industry influences . . . could be brain waves from alien spacecraft. It doesn't matter. Let's take a look over the past few years at some notable celebrities . . .

Robert Downey Jr

Now here's a guy that has had his fair share of run-ins with the law for stuff ranging from drugs to weapons possession. He's served time in both jail and prison and has gone to rehab a few times. Given his long list of drug offenses, you'd think that he'd still be in prison. But his career still thrives. His latest film, Tropic Thunder, is being filmed.

Mel Gibson

Mel's not a career criminal. For the most part he's a guy who likes to toss a few back and then go for a leisurely drive on the Pacific Coast Highway. If he happens to get pulled over, however, you might see the side of him that is a bit anti-semitic. During his last drunken drive he got pulled over and went off on the officers. For this he received 3 years probation, one year of AA meetings, and a $1300 bill to pay in fines and restitution. While he may have received some bad publicity, his most recent film, Apocolypto, has earned 27.9 million as of December 2006.

Michael Richards

Michael's another guy who isn't chasing after any lifetime criminal achievement awards. That doesn't change the fact that even though his career is drawing to a close he's playing it low key. He does share one common trait with Mel - he likes to go off on people simply because they're different. During a recent comedy performance he apparently displayed his lack of affection for black people. As with many celebrities, he has an excuse but it isn't drugs or alcohol. He has rage issues. He didn't answer to a judge, however, he answered to the court of public opinion and apologized.

Paris Hilton

I know you all wanted to hear about her. You can't possibly be sick of her yet. We all know that Paris got busted for a DUI and got her license taken away. But that didn't stop her, she drove anyway. What did we all expect from a gazillionaire princess? Apparently the judge wasn't payed off chose to throw her in jail. Even after trying to subvert the process, she couldn't manage to stay out from behind bars for 23 days. Evidently Paris' escapades with the sex videos and drugs and drunken driving have brought shame over the whole family and Grandpa Hilton has revoked her privilege to her big, fat inheritance.

Nicole Richie

Paris' ex-BFF has her own drunken driving problems. But she likes to do it driving the wrong way on the freeway. Hey, if you're gonna do it you may as well have fun doing it. Right? She's getting off pretty light if you think about it. She'll serve 4 days in jail, 3 years probation, pay a fine of $2048 and will attend 21 days of alcohol education courses. Something tells me she already knows how to use alcohol. After all this is her second offense in 4 years.

Lindsey Lohan

I'm sure you're all sick of her too, but she's actively chasing poster child status for problem Hollywood starlets. She's earned her second DUI arrest in a few months. Topping that with the cocaine they found in her possession, she's well on her way to getting a very, very hard slap on her precious, little wrist. Perhaps she believes that if she goes to rehab again it'll be ok or the slap won't be quite as hard? Everyone in California should know by now that if Lindsey's behind the wheel of a car they should find a safe place to ride out the storm. She's had at least three car accidents within one year. Time will tell what Lindsey receives from her most recent DUI. Will it garner the same punishment as Nicole, Paris or Mel?

The other day I ranted a bit about how kids are held to different standards than I was when I was their age. One of the cases I used to illustrate my point was that of two middle-schoolers that could potentially face jail and be required to register as sex offenders for slapping their peers on the ass - which, as it turns out, is a pretty common thing in their social circles and not to be taken as a sexual advance but rather as nothing more than a greeting of sorts. As I said, to each their own.

In reading the comments that followed the story online it appeared there were fairly mixed opinions. Some people believed that there was no need to push this issue and felt the school and law enforcement were going too far. Others felt that the kids should do their time since they should know better. As someone who has two children aged 9 and 12 I would contend that they often do know better. And parents teach their children better. But sometimes kids don't do what they're told. Sometimes they make bad decisions in order to conform to the rest of the pack so they will fit in, as I so often hear, "with the cool kids." I thought perhaps I was in the minority when I chastised those Oregonian school administrators and legal administration. In essence I suggested that those kids' lives could be ruined because they made some bad decisions which could be addressed by something as simple as a suspension rather than locking them up and labeling them as sex offenders. It appears I was wrong. I wasn't in the minority.

The comments from Bradley Berry outraged the parents of the two 13-year-olds, Ryan Cornelison and Cory Mashburn, who with their lawyers were deluged with calls from ABC, CNN, Fox, Court TV and radio stations across the country a day after a story about the prosecution appeared in The Sunday Oregonian.

Perhaps there's hope. Was it simply a school administration or legal office that wasn't quite so dogmatic in their approach to dealing with kids that they decided to rethink what they were doing? Was it the dedication of people who see our little world getting out of hand when it comes to raising our kids? Perhaps the school system was afraid of a law suit? Who knows? Maybe the district attorney feared that his career would end up going the same direction of Nifong's. Regardless, it's a good thing when people wake up and smell the coffee. Of course sometimes a nice, sharp smack on the ass can help.

Some recent events have caught my eye lately. Not long ago a reader of my blog followed up on a post I wrote that pointed to an article I linked to about people who were born before 1980. The article was a bit of a sarcastic congratulations. "How could people who were born before 1980 possibly have survived?" Rinsem followed up with a post that suggested we take a very serious look at how we raise our kids to produce children that will take risks and explore the world without fear. I wholeheartedly agree with Rinsem. I try to give my kids the freedom they need to try things and experience life. I may ask them to wear a helmet when they ride their bikes or come in from the rain, but I consider that common sense rather than fearful hovering.

In response to Rinsem's post, I commented to a specific point:

We are raising a generation who will not take a risk because they've been warned throughout their lives that the risks are dangerous. While this can be good, they simply don't understand the difference between a good risk and a bad risk because they don't have the life experience.

My comment on his post was:

The only thing I'd add here is that the price we paid for poor decisions or mistakes was much smaller when I grew up. At the very most, I might receive a generous spanking ( at least that's how my parents dealt with things ) or a very stern talking to. However, now our kids have to deal with "no tolerance" policies, litigious pricks who want compensation for everything little thing and little understanding that kids will make mistakes even when their parents teach them otherwise.

While I'm sure Rinsem understood what I meant, I want to use a couple examples that best represent what I mean. Recently a sixth-grade girl faced being sent to an alternative school for four months. Her crime? She wrote, "I love Alex" on a wall at school with a marker. The school has since changed their mind after the story got the attention of local media and citizens. She faced the same punishment that those who fight, make terroristic threats, and are caught with drugs. Granted, she shouldn't write on school walls. So give her a detention, some soap and water, and have her clean the mess. Thankfully the school eventually made the right decision. But what about the fate of these two 13 year-old kids?

Evidently childish behaviors, like slapping your peers on the ass, now warrant sex charges. It seems, based on the statements of several kids at the school, the norm is to slap your friends on the ass ( regardless of their gender ) as a form of greeting. Well, when I was younger we only did that on the football field or basketball court, but hey . . . to each their own.

So what should happen to these kids? Well, here's what could happen:

Police arrested Cory Mashburn and Ryan Cornelison of McMinnville and if convicted could be permanently marked as sex offenders, The Portland Oregonian said Sunday. The teens also could spend as long as 10 years in juvenile detention if found guilty.

That's the way to do it. Brand them as sexual offenders and stick them in the system. Evidently the district attorney is ready to prosecute:

While the boys' parents have opposed such a harsh penalty, McMinnville District Aattorney Bradley Berry said such youthful acts could have longstanding consequences for the alleged victims. "These cases are devastating to children," he said. "They are life-altering cases."

Damn straight they are. Branding them "sexual offenders" and institutionalizing 13 year old kids for acting stupid does alter their lives. But hey, you gotta get tough with these kids these days don't you? You need to punish them so severely that they would never think of making that mistake again. Zero tolerance. That's the ticket. Brand them for life the first time they step out of line. Honestly, when do we make the distinction between what is criminal and what is a product of bad decision making when it comes to kids? Why should we always resort to ruining someone's life in order to discipline? Couldn't a simple suspension have sent the message that their behavior was inappropriate?

Evidently I'm not the only one that has noticed this story. If you visit that link you'll also find a more in-depth news article about the incident.

Not long ago I posted a link to a series of short movies on YouTube about a cult of hateful people who just happen to live in Topeka. These people call themselves the Westboro Baptist Church.

You may have heard of them ever since they decided to start picketing the funerals of soldiers from Afghanistan and Iraq. I learned a lot about them by watching those videos. I still cannot agree with their message or the manner in which they spread it. What I didn't know is that they have been protesting here in Topeka for the last fifteen years.

For a long time the citizens of Topeka decided to ignore them. They clued in to the fact that these people enjoyed the attention they received. When they stopped getting the attention from Topeka they decided to branch out and preach hatred at the funerals ( of homosexuals ) in other states. Then along came 911 and Afghanistan and Iraq. To them it must have appeared they won the lottery.

Since that time several states have enacted laws to prevent the picketing of funerals. Kansas can finally say that they are taking steps in the right direction. Yesterday our Governor, Kathleen Sebelius, signed a bill that will address picketing funerals.

Under the Kansas statute, picketing would be prohibited within 150 feet of a funeral one hour before, during and two hours after a service. The penalty for the misdemeanor offense is a maximum six months in jail and $1,000 fine. The law also contains a provision allowing family members to file civil lawsuits against people who defame the dead.

As I've pointed out before, I'd love to link to Topeka's newspaper website so you could read cjonline's version of the story. But, the Capital-Journal hasn't yet learned that there are other, much better, news outlets on the Internet that understand people don't want to be forced to sign up just to read a news article.

As much as I would like to say, "Bravo!" and give them a standing ovation, all I can seem to muster at this time is, "It's about time." Kansas became the 33rd state in the nation to enact this kind of legislation. The 33rd! Yet they've not only been harboring the very people that this legislation is meant to address, they've also been tolerating it from them for 15 years. The only drawback is the our Governor has directed the Attorney General to mount a court battle against the bill in order to test the constitutionality of it.

Who knows how long that will take?

This case has lots of people talking. The opinion handed down from the Supreme Court is, quite simply, this:

"We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties."