Cause of Alarm

Cause of Alarm

The purpose of the alarm over the implementation of facial recognition technology in policing was because of the system’s capability to cause and oppress citizens. For instance, the law enforcement team from the New York police department hacked facial recognition by using a famous actor Woody Harrelson’s face to replace a blurred suspect facial image (Harrison, 2019). Furthermore, the facial recognition is flawed and needs discretion during application after it recognized a university student for the Sri Lanka suicide Bomber.

Additionally, facial recognition is prone to manipulation, thereby, can be wrongfully applied to incarcerate innocent people (Ray, 2020). For example, joint research between the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, with the help of Stanford University, created a software reenacting an individual’s speech onto another person. The software animates the facial cues from a video then express it on another video (Burgess, 2016). Hence, the software is capable of making an individual say another person’s speech with exact precision.

Technology racism is another cause for alarm over the implementation of facial recognition technology (Perkins, 2019). The technology has a high chance of wrongfully identifying a black member of the society than the white counterpart. For instance, the facial technology cannot differentiate black people with a beard in addition to black people wearing hooded jackets. The application of facial recognition technology will, therefore, lead to infringing on the fourth amendment on innocent black people (“Fourth Amendment,” n.d.). The fourth amendment outlines that authority should not use the power vested in them to unlawfully search private properties unless there exists a probable cause for such searches.

Classification of YouTube

The court dismissed the plaintiff in the case of PragerU v YouTube for failing to produce evidence enough to prove that YouTube was a government actor. More specifically, the jury stated that the actions that YouTube took to restrict some videos uploaded by the plaintiff due to violation of the site’s community policy, does not constitute any action reserved for the government Compl. ¶¶ 35, 41–46. Therefore, the court sided with the defendant stating that YouTube was not a public utility, and they had the right to operate the website according to their policies for which the users agreed to when joining the website’s community.

Additionally, the court dismissed the plaintiff claim that attempted to classify YouTube as a public utility contrary to the fact that the website was private (Geigner, 2018). According to the defendant, YouTube had permission to bar the plaintiff’s video for violating Communications Decency Act section 230 (c) (1). Moreover, Prager failed to produce sufficient evidence in court to support his reason for breaking the YouTube community communication policy.

Else ways, if YouTube were a public utility, then the offense of limiting videos uploaded by the conservative Prager would have been an infringement on the first amendment of the constitution, which protects people’s freedom of speech in the United States. Moreover, the first amendment protects people’s expressions or writing from bias based on their content. Though the provision ceases to protect the citizen in case the case involves a private institution. For instance, the court dismissed the Prager case stating that YouTube was a privately owned website with its set standards that guided users. Hence, the court concluded that the defendant did not violate any of the plaintiff rights given that the site was private, and its owners had the right to restrict any video content that violates their policies.

Misuse of Copyright Law by Mass Media

The case Green v Department of justice was an Electronic Frontier Foundation lawsuit in which Mr. Green, Huang, and Alphamax alleged that anti-circumvention and anti-trafficking act was inappropriately preventing them from freedom of speech (“Green v. U.S. Department of Justice,” 2016). More specifically, Dr. Green wants to write a book revealing codes used to secure the copyright of an electronic. He stated that the congress librarian did not broaden the law to exempt his research. Therefore he fears for litigation for circumventing as indicated in section 1201 of the act, and he requests that the bill be scrapped for being biased.

Similarly, Huang and Alphamax wanted to create a high definition television, but they must circumvent the copyright registered under the High Definition Multimedia Interface. The Electronic Frontier Foundation defended scraping of the law based on the plaintiff accusations stating that the activities after circumventing are the ones that will violate section 1201 of the act.  Furthermore, the librarian did not classify any of the plaintiff’s planned actions speech under protection. The jury dismissed the case since it did not have facts to support the claim that the provision was contrary to the constitution.

Section 107 of the copyright provision states that invoke the fair use of copyright material for an educational purpose, which is contrary to section 106 of the copyright law, which restricts of usage of copyright material to its author. There have been controversies of whether the copyright is fairly used or being infringed upon by other users (Ekstrand, 2006). The court decided that if the defendant is guilty of breaching on copyright material, then it qualifies as fair use if it is not meant for commercial purposes. The court might exempt Mr. Green from using the copyrighted material for educational purposes. Else ways, Mr. Huang and Alphamax, might be charged for breaking the copyright provision 107 since they intend to commercialize their electronics, which will deny revenue to the copyright owner of High Definition Multimedia Interface.

Communication Decency Act and Computer Interactive Service Providers

The lawyer Mr. Landa was right since section 230 of the communication decency act protect computer interactive service provider or users from liabilities. Specifically, the provision will protect Splatch (“What is Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act,” 2020).com, since the website was just a publisher of the information which was provided by Dieter Hellstrom in all their sites. Congress enacted the law after the case Zeran v America online in which it became apparent that if interactive computer service is held liable of messages they publish, then they will severely sensor subscribers and lose customers.

The internet legislation gave service providers such as Splatch the authority to edit and publish their users’ information without being liable to the crimes committed to the third party. For instance, contrary to the fact that all the interactive computer interfaces were subsidiary of Slplatch.com, and all of them allowed registration of an ex-convict known as Dieter Hellstrom with three different names. The websites’ owner will not be charged for any offense committed by a user to a third party since they have immunity provided by section 230 of the Communication Decency Act.

Without section 230 of the communication decency act, Web 2.0, Twitter, and Instagram would not have existed since they would have strictly censored what their customers say hence losing subscribers. The computer interactive service providers are not held accountable for not performing background analysis on their users. Therefore, even rapist and murderers can be a member. Hence, the products offered by websites such as Splatch.com are unsafe, and it is fair since it is the work of the authorities to correct offenders. Melanie should sue Dieter Hellstrom in court for the attempted sexual assault governed by section 664 of the Penal Code.

Law on Scandalous Material by Media House

The best course of action is to prove to President of UMUC and the Chancellor of U of Maryland that the news about the imminent meltdown of the United States financial institution is truthful. The fact was in the form of a loss of 2.2 billion dollars between the fiscal years 2013 to 2016 from the student loan and the education department. The proof will be crucial in defending The Adult Student Perspective against a lawsuit under section 283 of the Injunction act (“Near v. Minnesota 283 U.S. 697 (1931),” 2020).

The court, in the case Near v. Minnesota, ruled that whenever an individual is guilty of frequent publishing or broadcasting of scandalous that is malicious or defamatory, the court will charge them with nuisance. Fortunately, the content curator at The Adult Student Perspective can prove their innocence by presenting the fact in their news by optionally revealing their source of information as Dr. King Schultze. Secondly, the content curator will not be charged for nuisance since The Adult Student Perspective has been known for factual news, and it is not their frequent mistake.

The provision prohibits the publication of scandalous material by any private news outlets, and if anyone is charged with the offense, the defendant should be guilty of causing a nuisance. The publisher at The Adult Student Perspective will get favor from the provision in section 283 of the Injunction act. The publisher and the student newspaper will survive the potential shame and closure due to causing a nuisance by presenting facts at a court of law. The provision stated under section 283 will favor them if they prove that the covered story labeled ‘Sallie Mae and US DofEd meltdown imminent: Embarrassment and Defaults coming,’ is genuine and not malicious as suspected by the university’s management.

Communication Decency Act on Mass Media Slander News

Mr. Schultze should seek a lawsuit against WJZ – 13 journalist Jackie Brown for committing crime stated under the Communication Decency Act section 230 (“U.S. Defamation & Libel Laws,” 2020). Jackie Brown committed a slander offense against Mr. Schultze by falsely claiming that he plagiarized in his exams at UMC in addition to falsely stating his degree qualification. However, Mr. Schultze will get defamation compensation since he was not engaged in any form of cheating. Contrarily, for the information released by Jackie Brown about Mr. Schultze faking his title as a physician yet he was an herbalist and homeopath was true.

Furthermore, the first amendment will not protect Jackie Brown for giving speeches that have the potential of harming Mr. Schultze’s reputation. She will be charged for nuisance since WJZ – 13 revealed that Jackie Brown was a comedian, and she is fond of broadcasting scandalous information with malicious intent. Jackie Brown can also be charged with infringing on the first amendment since she disqualified information from Dr. Schultze publicly, yet it is everybody’s right to communicate freely.

However, the court will exempt the defendant from revealing the truth to the public. Hence WJZ – 13 will not pay a fine for allowing its journalist Jackie Brown to tell the truth to the audience. Though for slander concerning Mr. Schultze plagiarizing, his exams will amount to penalty, which will be payable to the plaintiff since he was a writer and a famous person whose image matters to the public. Additionally, Jackie Brown and the entire team will have the burden of proving the slander statement to win the lawsuit since Mr. Schultze was a public figure.

Mass Media and Copyright Law

The digital lifestyle show is found for free on YouTube, where the videos are compiled on a specific channel. Hence the content of the show was for free and did not have copyright unless the whole episodes are produced. Moreover, the play concerned Trump, who is in the government. Hence the media coverage was free of copyright. Producers of media materials of which users have obtained copyright are free from lawsuits concerning copyright infringement.

Furthermore, the digital lifestyle show was a continuation of what exist freely on the YouTube channel. The show was beneficial in educating American people about corruption involving their leader, and it qualified as fair use of the material under articles 1, 8, and classification 8. The video also qualified as fair use since it did not cover the entire episodes on YouTube.

Moreover, the copyright Act section 107 states that reproducing a copyrighted work in an attempt to comment or news is fair use and should not be copyright infringement. Furthermore, O-Ren obtained the work yet to be published directly from the owner Chamber, who endorsed it for the show. Unfortunately, the show was for sale on a paid television channel or Netflix. Thereby, it infringed on copyright law. Therefore lawyer Putnam will press for charges against infringing on the copyright of Chamber’s work.

Censorship to Unpublished Books

Suppression of a book before its publication is illegal in the United States since the author may change the content of the book before its release. Firstly, the state should vet the book to determine its validity to the public after its publication. Chamber’s should also first publish the book and allow the boards in schools to vet the validity of the content of the book to students and the society as a whole. Therefore, vetting a book before its due publication date is not appropriate in the community. Moreover, the book contained information about national security, and therefore, the author was at risk of getting sued for espionage.

Additionally, the censorship of unpublished book is an infringement on the first amendment of the constitution that protects freedom of speech for people and press. Therefore it illegal to conduct censorship on an unpublished book in the United States. The legal term for censoring a book includes if the book is ant-family, contains erotic content, promotes racism, anti-government, and generally encourage obscenity (“Banned & Challenged Classics,” 2020). Another legal method of censoring a book is through the application of section 18 of the Espionage Act that restricts disclosure of confidential information about the government, such as those published by Putnam.

For instance, the author published about obstruction of justice by the Russians, the government, Yemen, Saudi, and North Korea, which the United States favored. Hence, the author of the book can face charges for Espionage. Hence, Putnam might have colluded with an informer who leaked to him information of national interest as the Attorney General William Barr stipulated. Fortunately, Putnam would evade getting charged with espionage after providing evidence that he obtained the information through formal interviews. On the other hand, it depends on him to reveal his source to the court since there is a provision that protects sources of information.

First Amendment Provision on Tent City

The first amendment provision protects the erection of tent city in public parks as long as they are meant for demonstration purposes. A demonstration is a form of freedom of expression by members of the public. Contrarily, the law does not support the erection of a tent in public parks by homeless people, in addition to sleeping in the tents at night. However, there are cases in which sleeping at the public parks in the tent is exempted since first the amendment of the constitution does not categorize speech depending on their content. For instance, in the case of Clark v. C.C.N.V., the court allowed for sleeping in the park tent for a while since the demonstration was to illustrate the plight of the homeless people.

The court, in response to the case of Clark v. C.C.N.V., ruled that erecting camps in Public Park and consequently using the tents for sleeping is permissible if the plaintiff purposefully uses the tents for demonstration. Moreover, demonstrating is an expression which allowed under the first amendment (Siegel, 1986). Else ways, the provision forbids the erection of tents in public parks, thereby hindering their maintenance and usage by the members of the public to a specified period. Additionally, the provision exempts sleeping in tent cities to specific areas and considers the nature of the demonstration.

The provision was not based on the message communicated by the demonstrator nor the method implemented during the communication. Despite the requirement that camping at public parks should not include sleeping to allow for the maintenance of the parks and ready for usage by people. Contrarily, the nature of the case Clark v. C.C.N.V., in which the plaintiff was demonstrating to express the plight of the homeless, did not infringe on the first amendment, which promotes content neutrality. Therefore, the provision allowed for the sleeping in tent cities based on the nature of the message communicated by the people demonstrating.

First Amendment Provision on Sources of Media News

The first amendment that allows for freedom of speech will protect Marcellus’ source of political information and ensure it remains anonymous. Similar to the case McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission in which the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. More specifically, the jury dismissed the state provision that barred the distribution and publishing of political campaign leaflets from anonymous authors (Cherner, 2016). The court established the statute was overbroad and requested for it struck down since it was against the provision of freedom of speech.

Additionally, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act outlines the conditions for revealing the identity of covert intelligence in service of the United States (“Intelligence Identities Protection Act,” n.d.). The provision can protect Marcellus from getting sued upon denying to reveal the identity of his source of political information. Unfortunately, if the court classifies the case as of United States national interest, the Marcellus may be sued for infringing on the Espionage Act.

The first amendment will protect the source of information that Marcellus presented on Fox News. Marcellus should be firm and never yield to any threat from attorney general William Barr nor form the president of the United States, Donald Trump. The danger will not yield to any jail sentence since the first amendment provision protects Marcellus. On the other hand, there is no provision which protects Marcellus notes from being submitted upon court order.  Therefore, the plaintiff should make a copy of his notes as a backup if he loses the case against him and finally provides his notes as requested by the defendants who hold influential political posts.

First Amendment Provision on Freedom of Speech

The first amendment protects citizen freedom of speech, especially during a protest. For instance, GoGo, who was among the settlers protestors at the park, had obtained a warrant to protest peacefully, and therefore, the provision of freedom of speech protected from being sued for any offense. Contrarily, GoGo used promoted verbal obscenity in addition to encouraging a riot through her expression (“Rioting and Inciting to Riot,” 2020). For instance, she used the word such as grab, fight, avenge, death, and blood, which are words associated with inciting. The first amendment ceases to protect citizens whenever they intend to conduct violent protest classifiable as a riot.

Riot has the potential of causing harm to the general public through looting, personal injuries to both authorities, and third parties. GoGo was in the process of planning a riot to avenge on heroic police actions against thugs. Furthermore, she intended for harm to the government officials and famous members of the society. Hence it was legal to charge for inciting a protest. In the case of Schenck v. the United States, the court outlined that the first amendment would cease to protect an individual’s freedom of speech. Primarily when a person is found guilty of in-sighting criminal activities, and there is a high chance that the expression will cause danger to others (“Schenck v. United States,” 2020). For instance, in the case, the court had sufficient evidence that the defendant was obstructing the recruitment process of the army through circulars. Furthermore, they charged the defendant in the Schenck v. United States under the Espionage Act.

Similarly, in the GoGo case, there was an audio record to prove that she was involved citing of riot and fight against the authority, which is crime endangering the public. Therefore, the park authorities did not break the law by arresting GoGo and, more specifically, sealing her mouth from continued incitement to the public. If they had left her to finish her speech, the crowd would have turned violent.

Government Authority on Press Coverage

Real riot may enable the government to exclude press coverage since it qualifies as a word promoting fight and threats. Moreover, a riot has the potential of promoting obscenity, thereby allowing the government to lawfully restrict press coverage of such scenes (Ruane, 2014). Though the first amendment protects freedom of speech as well as press, there are exclusions such as those that promote obscenity. The government can suppress the freedom of media based on the content they are likely to acquire if allowed to continue with their press coverage.

The government can also scrutinize the content of the press or media outlet to enable continuity of compelling interest. Additionally, the government should curb obscenity associated with riot from media coverage to protect social norms and interests. Similar to the case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the court restricts the applicability of the first amendment based on the use of fighting or threating words. The fighting words have the potential of breaching the peace and causing harm to the public. Therefore, the government had the authority to limit press coverage. The press coverage of the riot at the park could have caused damage to the public. Mowbray should exclude all the media and press coverage of the imminent uprising at the park.

Freedom of Information Act

UMUC is a public institution hence Beatrix Kiddo had the right to request information from the organization since she was protected under the Freedom of Information Act. The only option that UMC management has is to prove to the members of the public that some information in the organization needs to be private (Peterson, 1980). The provision does not allow for withholding of information that is legally and would not cause damage to the reputation of an organization. Furthermore, the privacy act protects people from obtaining information that might violate the rights of an individual.

Contrarily, the provision does not protect persons when they harbor information about the national security of the country, classified by the police department, foreign policy, and other information defined by an institution as confidential. The information that UMUC management can deny Beatrix is records of 3 permanent administrators and faculty members since they are protected under the privacy act. Additionally, the student evaluation forms are private information that UMUC should deny Beatrix from accessing. Academic records such as disciplinary records are also private, and Beatrix should not access in addition to the physical capability of students.

Media Access to Federal Preliminary Hearing

The Washington Post and Baltimore Sun can get access to the federal preliminary hearing. Firstly, because the federal was accusing Honey Bunny of network and computer hacking, which was not confidential compared cases concerning trade, which should be secretive (“Access to Federal Court Proceedings,” 2020). The jury can, therefore, allow Washington Post and Baltimore Sun to attend the Bunny’s preliminary civil proceedings given the matter of hacking is a matter of public interest. Hence, the jury might allow public attendance as well the presence of Washington Post and Baltimore Sun since they compiled a Freedom of Information Act, which gave them a chance to access the information that Bunny deleted.

The jury in the case Richmond Newspapers. Inc. v. Virginia allowed for public attendance of the preliminary hearings in addition to the process of selecting the panel, the sentencing process, and during the plea (Switzer, 1982). Washington Post and Baltimore Sun might also be allowed by the jury to attend the hearing based on the merit of being partly plaintiff. On the other hand, the court will not deny the press access during grand jury hearing since it involves the prosecutors and the jury only. During the grand jury hearing, the plaintiffs present the case against the defendant to determine the validity of charges against the Bunny.

A Gag Order by the Courts

The judges should take a remedy of also charging Honey Bunny of denying access to information from a public institution even after the plaintiff sought warrant under the provision of Freedom of Information Act (Pozen, 2005). The case will provide a fairground for Honey Bunny’s lawyer to get a fair trial for their client after the pre-trial publicity effect. The lawyers will be able to prove that all the information that Washington Post and Baltimore Sun were seeking for were restricted and was inaccessible to the plaintiff. The judges should also issue a gag order on Washington Post and Baltimore Sun to ensure Honey Bunny gets a fair trial.

Another remedy that the court should to is to charge Honey Bunny with network and computer hacking only except for other crimes such as destroying documents for a state corporation. The federal court should make it clear that the defendant was guilty of hacking crimes, and the Washington Post and Baltimore Sun should not put headlines, which will jeopardize the trial process. Therefore, the jury should charge the Washington Post and Baltimore Sun for defamation in case they publish headline suggestive and concluding that Honey Bunny was also guilty of other crimes for which the court has not proved.

Reasons for Issuance of Gag Order by Courts.

A gag order is usually issued by the jury to ensure that each person involved in the preliminary trial does not speak openly publicly about the case, which has not finished. The reason for issuing a gag order is to ensure that an accused gets a fair trial, which would have been impossible if the preliminary proceedings were published and reported on the media (“What is a Gag Order,” 2019). The media is capable of discussing a trial before the final judgment, thereby denying Honey Bunny of getting a fair trial.

Additionally, the jury usually issues gag order on specified people and not the entire public who never participated in the proceedings. For instance, the gag order would have been issued by the judges to prevent Washington Post and Baltimore Sun from prematurely discussing and publishing the trial of Honey Bunny in the newspaper or through the press. The court also issues the jurors with a gag order and the lawyers involved during the court proceedings.

If Washington Post and Baltimore Sun go against the gag order, then they will be fined or jailed for the guilt of court contempt. In the case of Near v. Minnesota, the court established that anything serving as a prior restraint to an individual or media freedom of speech is unconstitutional (“Near v. Minnesota,” 2020). Contrarily for Honey Bunny’s case, the gag order was prior legal restraint, which the press had to observe to avoid paying fines or getting jailed.

Legal Provisions on Tobacco Advertisement

The city has the constitutional mandate under the Tobacco Control Act in addition to the Family Smoking Prevention provision to survive a legal challenge concerning advertising (“Food and Drug Administration,” 2011). The regulations outline several measures that the city is capable of enforcing to prevent the advertisement of the products from Nygga- Cracka Blunts. Firstly, the law mandates the city’s authority to ban and restrict endorsement of any tobacco-related products within a thousand feet from schools, colleges, and sports arenas. The Washington Metropolitan Transportation Authority, on the other hand, have a limited mandate to ban tobacco-related products advertisement from Bus stops.

Washington, DC city council, will, however, not be able to defend and ban tobacco relate products advertisements from public parks nor even at recreational centers since it will be a breach to the first amendment. Based on the scant fact, the Nygga- Cracka Blunts lawyer and advertiser will win the case to advertise near public parks and recreational points. Moreover, they will win the case and be able to promote there product at every bus stop since the restrictions deny them freedom of speech.

Washington Redskins Old Trademark Problems

The Washington Redskins trademark problem used to be an issue until the judges ruled that content-based discrimination during the application of trademarks is against the first amendment regulations (Heitner, 2017). The judge decided during the court hearing of Matal, Interim Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office v. Tam in which the trademark name was disparaging and racial. In the previous but similar cases concerning trademark registration, the court denied registration of logos and name when the jury found out that they were disparaging or racial. Fortunately, the court has since stopped the practice claiming that it is against the first amendment of freedom of speech.

Nygga- Cracka Blunt’s name and logo, which contained sentiments or redskin advertisement material, would have no difficulty during registration since the court ruled that discrimination based on the content of a trademark is against freedom of speech. Moreover, some elements of the advert might be invalid since they promote violence. For instance, the cartoon holds an AR-15 gun. The advert appears to promote reckless usage of firearms in public, which is detrimental to consumers. Otherwise, Nygga- Cracka Blunt’s administration should proceed and register the trademark and logo since the first amendment protects them.

Provision for Law Enforcement Pursuant on Media Houses

The first amendment of the constitution in the United States allows everyone to publish or print freely without restrictions (“Freedom of the Press,” 2020). Therefore the Federal Bureau of Investigation and its counterpart had no legal authority to search the newsroom of El Rey.  Moreover, the officers used a sealed search warrant that allowed them to ransack everything in the media organization, including non-published information in the form of both soft and hard copy. The court does not allow for the use of a warrant on press or media houses since it infringes on the first amendment, which advocates for freedom of speech.

The court can only issue a subpoena when it is an arrest made in media houses since it specifies the item to be seized and not ransacking of every document in the media organization. The use of warrant also infringed on the Privacy Act since the officers searched everything at the El Rey media house (“Privacy Act 1974,” 2020).  The court should have issued the Federal Bureau of Investigation with a subpoena to specifically arrest Satanica Pandemonia with an allegation of espionage and not ransacking the whole media and making illegal arrests. There are privileges on federal reporters though a subpoena was appropriate for seizing the specific source of information or the informant.

Provisions for Media Access to Federal Information

Mrs. Wallace will not be able to access information about the raid faster, even if she gets access to the warrant affidavit or through Freedom of Information Act. The court filed the document as a pre-trial and sentencing report, which is always sealed documents. Furthermore, the information about the raid was sealed by the court to avoid encouraging retaliatory thought in witnesses (“Accessing Court Documents- Journalist’s Guide,” n.d.). Requesting for an emergency court hearing will not be possible since the Court of Appeal since it against the law to conduct and external communication with the judges under the judicial code of conduct.

On the other hand, requesting the raid under the Freedom of Information Act will work since it promotes ease of access to information at public institutions. However, Mrs. Wallace might be denied access to the data using the Freedom of Information Act since it classified documents concerning the Federal Bureau of Investigation. However, if Mia Wallace seeks an affidavit, she will be able to have access to the raid report and records that are crucial for her employer NBC in Washington.

Games Copyright Issues

Firstly, Daisy could get away with the copyright issue after writing a computer program that would extract various parts of the game’s rulebook then create a new rulebook with a much simpler format. The copyright owner of the Monsters vs. Bikers will not be able to sue Daisy for copyright infringement since different parts of the games have separate copyrights. Moreover, other parts of the games can never be copyrighted since they are always easily accessible in the public domains. For instance, the Monsters vs. Bikers rulebooks seems to lack copyright since it was available from a public domain.

The United States Copyright Act section 102 outlines that work that is capable of having copyright must be original, as stated in the requirement of the provision (“Subject matter and scope of copyright,” n.d.). The provision state that game copyright is obtained for the program and its display while on monitors. Though copyright holders are always asked to choose the section of the game that proves more of their authorship to for copyright application. Furthermore, there are high chances that the original game author never took copyright for the rulebooks. Therefore the court will not charge Daisy with copyright infringement. Moreover, Daisy wanted to make the game easier to play and not for commercial use.

Provisions on Subliminal Advertisement by Media Organizations

The lawsuit that Rolling Stone might face is that which prevents the use of subliminal methods of advertising. Rolling stone’s exhibition poster contained a hidden message that aimed to pass a message to consumers (Lane. 2020) mentally. The Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communication Commission have defined the subliminal advertisement as a deceptive and against the law. Fortunately, the provision is applicable for televised and announcement on the radio only. There are no specified terms for a billboard advertisement. Therefore Rolling Stone might not be charged for the crime.

Furthermore, in the case Roth v. United States, the court decided that anyone or any company found guilty of promoting obscenity through advertisement is not protected by the first amendment act of freedom of speech (Waples & White, 1978). The provision might be national or state law but serves as a guide for advertisers to avoid promoting obscenity in public. The Rolling Stones advert was against the South Carolina state standards as stipulated by their governor Nice Guy Eddie.

The court will also charge a rolling stone for lacking respect for the South Carolina traditions and history. Neither will the court charge the company for promoting prurient desire nor homosexuality through its advertisement. Rolling Stone Company will escape from getting charged since the regulations are not yet laws but proposed statements of belief. Unfortunately, the court will fine the company for promoting obscenity especially to children through its billboard posters. Their billboard advert will be publicly displayed, and children will be able also to view it and the adult. Though the image in the advert is deemed obscene and neither will the first amendment protect the company from the allegations.

Conditions for Infringing on Town Ordinance

The court will charge B & W for braking the Texas town ordinance prohibiting advertisement, which promotes cruelty to animals (“Advisory Legal Opinion,” 2011). Judas Priest stated that the company would pay a fine of 100000 dollars or one-year imprisonment. Despite the existence of the first amendment, which prohibits a content-based discrimination advertisement, the court will still charge the B & W Company for breaking the town’s ordinance. Though the Texas town ordinance might have a time limit for which it is effective from the date of crime, the company will have to pay the fine.

Town ordinance is always required to be in line with the statute of a country to avoid contradictions (Rose, 1947).  The B & W Company will have to pay the fines instead of getting imprisoned for the crime of braking Town ordinance because infringing on a directive does not constitute a crime. More specifically, punishing the company for the offense of ordinance is unaccepted by the constitution. The constitution stipulates that for an individual or a group of people to be imprisoned, then they should have committed a crime, but the ordinance does not amount to a crime.

Legislation on Mass Media Ethics

The first advantage of the bill proposed in Georgia is that it will serve to increase ethics in media and press, which have led to increased incidences of fake news (Fowler, 2019). The provision will also enable the creation of the board of ethics advisory for the various media outlets, which will guide them from pitfalls of paying huge fines to unethical practices. Furthermore, the board will be independent of civil liabilities during its operations. People interviewed by the media organization will have free access to their interview notes and file for free from media failure to which the media will pay a fine of 100 dollars daily.

On the other hand, the provision stipulated in Georgia has the limitation of being against the first amendment, which states that no government shall legislate a law to restrict the freedom of media and press (Salzer, 2019). Furthermore, the bill stops one of the ways used by media to generate income, for instance, charging fees to give information to the public in addition to imposing fines to a media organization that shall not comply. The sponsors of the bills had relevant motives and perspectives since they sought to enact a bill of ethics that guide journalism but not limiting their freedom.