Written by: Jay D. Hall
Edited by: Stefanie Herrington, Amy E. Seely

On May 15, 2008, federal prosecutors in Los Angeles filed charges against Lori Drew for her role in a Myspace hoax that led to the suicide of 13-year-old Megan Meier. Ms. Drew told police that she created a Myspace account for the sole purpose of communicating with Megan in order to find out what Megan had been saying about Drew’s teenage daughter. Drew admitted that she, along with a temporary employee, Ashley, created the profile of a “good looking male” named Josh in order to befriend Megan. Soon, the communications became “sexual for a thirteen year old.”

The internet relationship soon took a nasty turn. After receiving messages ending the online romance that included accusations that Megan was promiscuous and a statement that “the world would be better off without you,” Megan committed suicide by hanging herself in her bedroom closet. Tina Meier, Megan’s mother, remembers with regret a conversation she had with her daughter about her online communications. Meir said Megan was “looking for me to help calm herself down like I always did…but I was upset at the language she was using.” Megan’s last words to her mother were, “You’re supposed to be my mom, you’re supposed to be on my side.” Then she stormed upstairs, where Mrs. Meier found her daughter’s lifeless body shortly thereafter.

Following Megan’s suicide and an ensuing investigation, Ms. Drew was indicted by a grand jury on charges of conspiracy and accessing protected computers without authorization to get information used to inflict emotional distress. Drew admits that “communication between the fake male profile and Megan was aimed at gaining Megan’s confidence. Mrs. Meier noted her daughter struggled with self-esteem issues, but after receiving messages from “Josh” telling her she was “pretty,” Megan seemed thrilled. Mrs. Meier also said that when “Josh” broke off the relationship, Megan was devastated.

Initially, when her involvement came to light, Drew was apologetic about her role in Megan’s death; she even sent Megan’s parents a written apology. She didn’t anticipate being held criminally responsible for the suicide. Even the prosecutor from St. Charles County, where all of the events took place, stated there was no law under which she could be charged. Federal prosecutors, however, disagreed and brought criminal charges against Ms. Drew.

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by: John Deininger
Researched by: Nick Caleb
Edited by: Jeff Hinman, Lauren E. Trent

The city of Los Angeles is cracking down on drugs. It filed criminal charges against officials of two companies allegedly importing and distributing poisonous toothpaste. As it so happens, the poisonous chemical diethylene glycol, is better suited for cooling engines than improving dental hygiene. Finding antifreeze in toothpaste conjures images of Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle, and people falling into rendering vats. Didn’t the public outrage resulting from the book and the leadership of one of the greatest U.S. Presidents (Teddy Roosevelt) help create food and drug regulations to prevent such egregious violations of law? Yes, but there’s a lot to regulate.

The Food Drug and Cosmetics Act required manufacturers to demonstrate a product’s safety, and granted the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) broad powers to regulate food, drugs, and cosmetics. How the FDA classifies a product has important ramifications for the regulation and approval process. When it comes to FDA approval and regulation, the product’s primary use is the determining factor.

The FDA considers toothpaste a drug. That seems like an obvious and straightforward concept, but, surprisingly, ambiguity exists. Toothpaste could seemingly be either a drug or a cosmetic because it is used to protect your teeth, but also to keep them looking nice. A product is a drug if 1) drug-like effects are foreseeable in large groups of people, 2) consumers use the product predominantly for its significant pharmacological effects, or 3) manufacturers know that the product will be used for these drug-like effects. Cosmetics manufacturers, on the other hand, must simply declare their ingredients, not make any false claims on the packaging, and use safe chemicals. Since pretty teeth are more of a byproduct of the action of toothpaste’s chemicals, like fluoride, it’s out of Clinique land and into the realm of Tylenol.

While toothpaste comes in many flavors, as far as the FDA is concerned there are only two flavors of drugs: over-the-counter and prescription. Whichever category a drug falls into will determine the amount of hoops a company has to jump through to get it approved. Most toothpaste, including the one containing the coolant, is over-the-counter, but some toothpastes are only available by prescription. So where does the FDA draw the line?
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by: Kimberly Brandt
Researched by: Nick Caleb
Edited by: Edward S. Bushnell and Stefanie Herrington

Teenagers often do things they later regret, but these days such mistakes can quickly reach a global audience. One incident that has graced the headlines involves two Wisconsin teenagers, Alex Phillips and his ex-girlfriend (referred to as “HLK”). In a breakup that turned ugly, Phillips posted pictures on his Myspace account that HLK had taken of herself and emailed to him several months prior to the incident. What’s illegal about that? According to the complaint, the first picture was full frontal nudity and the second of her genital area, to which Phillips added his own colorful caption. And since HLK is a mere 16 years old, the criminal issue pops up. When police contacted Phillips and requested that he take the pictures down, warning him that he could go to jail for refusing, Phillips reportedly replied, “f*** that, I am keeping them up.” Though Phillips did later take down the photographs, the “venting” teenager now faces charges for possession of child pornography, sexual exploitation of a child, and defamation.
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by: Tom Borton
Researched by: Jeff W. Richards
Edited by: Jay Hall, Stefanie Herrington, and Amy E. Seely

Over the past few centuries, this country has seen vigorous debate about what kinds of marriages should be recognized valid. As early as 1664, anti-miscegenation laws criminalized marriages between whites and black slaves. In 1862, Congress passed the Morrill Act, which prohibited polygamy. Since the 1970’s, courts have permitted laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. Today, anti-miscegenation laws have been fully repudiated, but debate continues regarding same-sex marriage, and recent events in California and across the nation have fueled the fire.

On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court decided In Re Marriage Cases, allowing same-sex couples to marry. That decision has stirred two old debates back to life. First, if a same-sex couple legally marries in one state, must other states recognize that union? Will statutes banning same-sex marriage soon be just a speed-bump on the U.S. road to marital bliss? Second, will state recognition of homosexual marriages lead to anti-polygamy laws bring overturned? Will plural marriage follow from gay marriage? The path ahead is unclear. Is Gay Marriage a Slippery Slope or an Even Playing Field?
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by: Steve Glista
Researched by: Darci G. Van Duzer
Edited by: Peter Fehrs, Lauren E. Trent

Global warming may be a fact of life, but fashion still changes with the seasons. Consumers of high-fashion clothing continuously demand new looks from designers like Armani, Chanel, and Christian Dior. A buyer who has spent thousands on a single item of clothing would not tolerate the embarrassment of showing up at a party in the same dress as the hostess. To prevent such faux pas from ruining anyone’s night, most couture designs are made in limited quantities and at exorbitant prices. Unfortunately, not even those precautions are guaranteed to avoid the problem. New York designer Oscar De La Renta crafted an $8,500 crimson gown and several socialites still managed to wear it to the same event in 2006.

For those of us who aspire to keep up with the latest trends, but are forced to hang our fashion sense from the clearance rack, there is a ray of hope: retail operations like Forever21 and PinkIce work in partnership with knockoff creators like Seema Anand to imitate each new design as soon as it crosses the runways of Paris or Milan. The imitators are so quick that sometimes the copied designs hit store shelves before the originals!

The dispute between designers and copycats has inspired scholarly papers and textbook chapters. A series of blogs have sprung up to chronicle the escalating friction between high-fashion designers and the retailers beating them at their own game. Widespread copying has forced some designers to turn to the courts to prevent the imitations from stealing their business. Anna Sui, for example, is suing Forever21 in New York federal court for “blatant and intentional” copying of “numerous” pieces of women’s apparel. She’s asking the court for lost profits and an order preventing Forever21 from imitating her work in the future. Can Ms. Sui rely on copyright law to stop Forever21?
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by: Rachel Sowray
Edited by: Stefanie Herrington, J. Aaron Landau, Amy E. Seely

The capitalist society of the United States glamorizes having money, and lots of it. The media covers the beautiful homes, jewelry, and entire islands owned by celebrities and millionaires around the world, and these stories get airtime because everyone dreams of living that life, too. The glitz and glamor of Las Vegas and other casino cities draw millions of people each year to see the splendor and — more importantly — gamble. The riches are sexy and exciting, so it’s no surprise many dream of hitting it big. Becoming a millionaire by just putting some money on the table, having lady luck smile down, and playing the odds against the casino’s advantage is glamorized even by Hollywood movies like “21.” Besides, who doesn’t want to have the celebrity lifestyle Kate Bosworth and Kevin Spacey embody?

Gambling isn’t just luck, though. A big part is being smart and knowing the odds so you don’t lose your shirt… but how far can a person go? Count cards? Work with friends? Use wireless earpieces to communicate about which tables are “hot”? How much can a player tip the odds in his or her favor before the casino can complain or even remove that player from the premises? Read the rest of this entry »

Written by: Jeff Hinman
Researched by: Darci G. Van Duzer and Tom Borton
Edited by: Eric Wasik

Last month, a writer for an Italian website revealed that the end user license agreement (EULA) for the Windows version of Apple’s web browser, Safari, prohibited installation of the software on a PC. Much to the embarrassment of Apple, the attorneys who prepared the Safari-for-Windows EULA overlooked this term while adapting the agreement from the Mac-only version. Apple has since modified the “Mac-only clause” to allow installation and use on “each computer owned or controlled by you.” Apple may have fixed the problem for now, but this slip-up highlights the fact that very few people read EULAs — sometimes not even the attorneys who are paid to write them.

With the click of a mouse, EULAs that accompany software (called click-wrap agreements) can become binding contracts. That “I Accept” button might take away your right to a jury trial, your right to exclusive use of your own work, or even your right to criticize the product that you are downloading. Some EULAs exist just to protect the company offering the product. Users under 18 violate Google’s EULA whenever they use Google’s search engine or login to their Gmail.com accounts, a provision that’s included to protect Google from liability rather than actually prevent underage users. Other EULAs are created with teeth: World of Warcraft’s EULA bans online gamers who violate it by using a program that automates gameplay to hasten “leveling-up” or to generate currency.

The Mac-only provision appears to be a quickly remedied oversight, but before anyone noticed Apple’s mistake, scores of PC users downloaded and installed Safari (as part of an Apple Software Update for iTunes) and were in violation of Apple’s explicit terms of use. If Apple’s Mac-only provision had been intentional, could they have enforced those original terms? In other words, is a click-wrap agreement a binding and enforceable contract?
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by: Nick Caleb
Researched by: Steve Glista
Edited by: Kimberly Brandt

Some documents are just too good to keep to yourself. Recently, the Department of Justice released sections of a second “torture memo” written in 2003 by John Yoo, formerly an attorney at the Department of Justice. This memo supplements the leaked 2002 memo written by Yoo and then-head of the Office of Legal Counsel for the President, Jay S. Bybee. The first memo argued that torture only occurs if an interrogator actually intends — and causes — organ failure or death during interrogation. Anything less may be cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment (which are all flatly banned by international treaty and the Geneva Conventions), but not torture.

The second memo took it one step further, discussing possible defenses for those accused of torture, as well as the idea that “[their] Office recently concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations.” The authors of the memos undoubtedly intended to keep them private… how did they end up all over the media?

In fact, this memo would never have been publicly released if it weren’t for a law called the Freedom of Information Act, or “FOIA.” In this case, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) utilized FOIA and fought a legal battle for almost four years to compel the Department of Justice to release the documents.

FOIA has been used to obtain government information on a wide range of issues, including everything from FBI information on pop culture icons (like Elvis and Frank Sinatra), to notorious criminals (such as Bonnie & Clyde and Al Capone), to famous scientists (like Einstein), and even paranormal activity (UFOs, Roswell, and ESP).

What exactly is this tool and how does it help the public acquire the necessary knowledge to participate effectively in democracy?
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by: Ed Bushnell
Researched by: Jeff Richards
Edited by: John Deininger

On March 30, six teenage girls in Lakeland, Florida, allegedly took turns beating 16-year old Victoria Lindsay for half an hour while two teen boys acted as lookouts. Planning to broadcast the beating on YouTube and MySpace as an apparent retaliation for insults Lindsay posted on her own MySpace page, the girls took turns videotaping the attack.

Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd was upset about the incident, and upset about the way the teens reacted to their subsequent arrest: “They were laughing and joking,” he said. In fact, Grady was so appalled at the alleged behavior that he released parts of the videotaped beating. Within days of its release, the video and the sheriff’s statements were broadcast in print, television, and online sources around the country.

The media blitz was stymied on April 9, when a Florida judge issued a gag order, restricting lawyers, law enforcement and witnesses from releasing information about the case. Rusty Franklin, who is representing one of the alleged lookouts, requested the order in response to what he described as the “barrage of inflammatory, prejudicial information” pertaining to the case.

Why does it matter if parties affiliated in the case release information to the general public? Isn’t it their First Amendment right? A gag order represents the clash and compromise between two fundamental rights: the right to free speech, and the right to a fair trial.
Read the rest of this entry »