© Copyright 1887 - 2013. All Rights Reserved
Florida A&M University is an Equal Opportunity/Equal Access University
Tallahassee, FL 32307 | (850) 599-3000
"LMAO... THAT GUY IS SUCHA %%#!"
by: Daniel Lewis
Defamatory statements cause reputational harm to an individual in the eyes of their individual community. During the adjudicative process, courts must muddle through the complex interaction between defamation, reputation, and community values which comprise defamation claims. This process begins with assessing the plaintiff’s community and communal norms. As global modes of communication evolve rapidly, how communities and sub-communities are defined evolves equally quickly. This problem is exacerbated by the modernization of social trends and changing standards of what constitutes appropriate conduct. The current legal regime’s structure by which the court identifies a plaintiff’s community is in need of reform.
Watching you watch TV
by: Phillip Guerra
The ecosystem of cable, as we know it, is under attack by Silicon Valley and ripe for disruption. A new tech challenger is looking to assist in that process and enter the market, even if it means entering a completely new line of business. According to sources, Intel Corporation is expected to announce a slimmed down, over-the-top cable subscription service to be offered to consumers. Implementing facial-recognition technology to identify who (not specific people) is in the living room watching television when, the company has developed the technology to use such facial data collected to target advertisements accordingly, and correct an issue of reliability and accuracy of data on audiences when it comes to the current rating system. A camera watching you watch television raises an immediate privacy concern.
by: Courtnie Swearingen
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was one of the most controversial pieces of legislation in recent history. The Act brought about sweeping health care reforms in a system that was desperate to control costs and cover millions of uninsured Americans. This article focuses on the two constitutional challenges brought to against the PPACA by twenty-six states, the individual mandate and the Medicaid expansion. The article breaks down how the court decided these two issues, the questions they were concerned with, and the impact their decision has had on the American public so far. It seeks to make the decision by the Supreme Court easy to understand, and focuses only on the most relevant portions of the Obama Administration’s central legislative accomplishment.
by: Denise Cespedes
Over a decade has passed since terrorists violently attacked our nation and forever altered the life of every American. While the trauma of that day has eased with time, the tragic events that transpired on that unsuspecting September morning set into motion a series of unprecedented changes to U.S. counterterrorism efforts. The most recent change occurred on January 1st 2012, when President Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act. The NDAA is a defense bill containing critical provisions outlining the transfer of authority regarding suspected terrorists from law enforcement to the military and it has quickly become one of the most hotly debated pieces of legislation since the Patriot Act. The provisions at issue allow for the indefinite detention of any individual detained under the Act including American citizens on U.S. soil. Those who oppose the Act argue that America’s most sacred liberties are at stake while others fear that America would be vulnerable to another attack without these proactive measures. The NDAA has without question rallied legislators, political commentators, civil and human rights groups alike to set the stage for what may prove to be one of the most significant political discussions regarding constitutional rights and the steps our country has taken in the name freedom.