Peer Review Study

The first fundamental concept is Freedom of the press which protects the right to obtain and publish information or opinions without government censorship or fear of punishment. Freedom of press applies to all types of printed and broadcast material, including books, newspapers, magazines, pamphlets, films and radio and television programs.
Being sure the government is running properly, is an important right in a free society. People do not have the time or ability to watch everything the government does. The press serves this function by investigating and reporting on the government 's activity.
Branzburg v. Hayes (1972) concerned some news reporters, called journalists, who interviewed drug users and gang members to write stories for
their newspaper. The journalists promised not to reveal the names of the people they interviewed. The government, however, wanted the journalists to reveal the names to grand juries that were investigating criminal activity. The journalists refused. They said freedom of the press gives them the privilege, to keep secrets when they learn things while gathering the news.

The second fundamental concept is the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur if a state prohibited someone getting an employment contract because he/she was a member of a certain race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individual but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights.

Third fundamental concept is Due Process, the legal system must follow constitutional procedures in trials and legal actions against individuals suspected of crimes.
n. a fundamental principle of fairness in all legal matters, both civil and criminal, especially in the courts. All legal procedures set by statute and court practice, including notice of rights, must be followed for each individual so that no prejudicial or unequal treatment will result.
Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which provides "No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," and is applied to all states by the 14th Amendment

http://www.lincoln.edu/criminaljustice/hr/Speech.htm http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equal_protection http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=595

Directions
Read Chapter 3 prior to completing this assignment. Many case studies are included in your textbook. This exercise will help you to learn vocabulary and how to analyze the case studies.
Brief 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island on p. 73-75. Use pages 21-23 for reference. In your brief, you should include the following information: * the parties (Who is the plaintiff? The defendant? The appellant? The appellee?) * the history of the case (Who won at trial court? Who won at the lower appellate level? Who won in this decision?) * the facts (What happened that caused the plaintiff to sue?) * the plaintiff 's theory (Why he thinks he is right) * the defendant 's theory (Why she thinks she is right) * the legal issue (a yes or no question) * the holding of the court (Yes or no--answers the legal issue).
What do you think? Was this case decided correctly? Why or why not? (Study tip: For the mid-term, remember that the issue is the question the court answered; the holding is the answer to that question.) Parties. 44 Liquormart Inc. - Plaintiff and Appellee The State of Rhode Island, -Defendant and AppellantHistory. The District Court invalidated the law and the Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court unanimously reversed, but it was divided into several camps on the reasoning. |
Facts. A Rhode Island law banned advertisement of the price of alcoholic beverages in any manner except by tags or signs inside liquor stores. The state courts had several times upheld the law, finding that it reasonably served the state goal of promoting temperance. Two high-volume liquor retailers challenged the law under the free speech clause in federal court. The Rhode Island Liquor Stores Association intervened on behalf of the state. The District Court invalidated the law and the Court of Appeals reversed.

Plaintiffs Theory. Rhode Island prohibited 44 liqourmart from “advertising in any manner whatsoever”. The only exception to the restriction was for price tags or signs displayed with the merchandise within licensed premises. 44 Liquormart asked the court to rule that the statutes referred to above violated the First Amendment.
Defendants Theory. The state of Rhode Island asserts an interest in reducing alcohol consumption
Issue. Can a state constitutionally ban the advertising of alcohol prices?
Holding of the court. No, the state statue prohibiting the advertisements is an invalid restriction of commercial speech. All nine justices agreed that the statue was invalid.
I agree, there is a valid state interest in preventing truthful misleading information put out to the public. The plaintiff is protected by the First Amendment; the dissemination of truthful and no misleading commercial messages about lawful products and services. This ban on advertisements is more extensive than necessary and overly broad.

Mallor, J. P. (2013). Business law: the ethical, global, and e-commerce environment (15th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Peer Review
How do I write a Peer Review?
Please put “Peer Review” at the top of your posting so I will see it and give you credit for it when I am grading. List your peer’s name. Answer: What was your favorite part of her/his comments? Did he/she cite the textbook if appropriate? Evaluate his/her use of online resources. (Check the website links to see if the links work and are on topic. Did your peer explain how the website was relevant to the discussion topic?) Evaluate the web site: What was your favorite component of the website? Will it be useful in your study of business law? Try to pick someone to review who hasn’t been reviewed
yet.

My favorite part in your discussion is privacy in the workplace. I also believe it is important for working Americans to know their rights in the workplace. Times are changing and different States have different employee rights but majority the same. I was reading an article in the Los Angeles Times stating that, “a ticket taker for the Philadelphia Eagles was fired in 2009 for tweeting that the team was stupid (though he used a harsher word) for not signing a certain player.” I was surprised but then again that was four years ago, employees are now aware of their privacy rights. The cited website about Brad Fair was one of the stories I found most intriguing. Fair is right, why hide cameras? I believe that is a huge violation of privacy in the workplace. Right to privacy is useful not only in business law but to anyone who is employed. I believe it is crucial because we all have individual autonomy. In choosing concepts and principles of the American Legal system, I’ve decided to discuss three that I’m able to relate closely to in my place of business.
Those concepts being the Right to Privacy, Commercial Speech and Religious Discrimination.Lack of right to privacy in the workplace is a common complaint among American workers. Companies surveil their employee’s phone calls (via phones or headsets), emails, through the use of visual monitoring equipment, etc. with the intent of ensuring company property is being used solely for business purposes and to detour theft. Drug testing may also be viewed as a violation of privacy. This monitoring and probing may or may not be made known to the employee. Perhaps what I found most interesting was the amount of statutes that are put in place to protect employees against the violation of their privacy in the workplace. Some may not be known to the employee and others may not be enforced by legislators. I believe it’s important that employees empower themselves with the knowledge of their rights. Knowledge is now only power, but a sure way to know when your rights are being violated. To list a few statutes that protect employees, on drug testing “Employers may only conduct drug tests when there is "reasonable suspicion" of alcohol/drug abuse; no universal or random testing is permitted”; on monitoring “Prior to monitoring, employers must provide a visual or aural signal to employees and any customers”; on lifestyle
discrimination “Employers cannot discriminate against employees or applicants on the basis of their conduct during non-working hours and off workplace premises (including smoking, dietary and leisure activities) unless the conduct affects employee 's ability to fulfill work responsibilities”. Many businesses and corporations promote their products and services by way of advertising. In the case of Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly/Altadis U.S.A. Inc. v. Reilly, in 2001, it was established that even though the tobacco product is proven unhealthy and addictive, the advertising of this product is protected under the First Amendment. In 1968, the Central Hudson Test was founded and still today is the standard by which determination is made of the constitutionality of government restrictions on advertisement. Central Hudson states that there are four points that should be considered when questioning restrictions. The article states the four standard points as follows: the advertising is misleading, the government interest in regulation is substantial, the regulation directly advances that interest, and the regulation is not more extensive than necessary. If any of these points are met, then a case in restricting advertisement may be made. Finally, the first attempt taken by government to end religious discrimination in the workplace occurred over 70 years ago and was initiated by Franklin D. Roosevelt. In 2002, President Bush signed into law the Executive Order 13279. This order allows religious organizations that receive government contracts to discriminate based on religion in hiring. The current administration has yet to resend this order and restore the protection of this fundamental civil right.

REFERENCES:https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/through-keyhole-privacy-workplace-endangered-righthttp://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/advertising-first-amendment-overview https://ssl.capwiz.com/aclu/issues/alert/?alertid=61015926&type=PR?s_src=UNW120001C00&ms=web_religdiscrim_ac |