Libel Essay Example for Free

Libel Essay The civil liberties that the American people have are described as inalienable rights. One of the most important of these rights is the freedom of speech. Yet freedom of speech is not entirely protected; the First Amendment does not protect publishers of libel. Libel is defined as a false and malicious publication printed for the purpose of defaming a living person. The First Amendment provides a great deal of protection to the press in cases involving libel of public figures. This protection is considered necessary to ensure that the government will not restrict the flow of accurate information. The crime of libel has the following elements defamation, publication, the statement must be heard or seen by someone other than victim and source; identification, the statement must somehow identify its intended victim; falsity the statement must, and actual malice. Some of the significant court cases concerning libel are New York Times Co. v Sullivan (1964), Behrendt v. Times Mirror (1938), Pauling v. Globe Democrat (1967), Kervorkian v. American Medical Association (1999), Washington Post v. Kennedy (1924), and Hutchinson v. Proxmire (1979). Defamation is defined as â€Å"the act of injuring someone’s character or reputation by false statements. † [1] Cases of defamation are only considered attacks on if they are made in a vindictive or malicious manner. One of the most important Supreme Court decisions concerning libel of public officials took place in 1964. This case was New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. This case was about the alleged libel of L.B. Sullivan in the New York Times magazine. The magazine published an editorial advertisement entitled, â€Å"Heed Their Rising Voices† by the Committee to Defend Martin Luther King. [2] The full-page advertisement detailed abuses suffered by African American students by the police in Montgomery, Alabama. Even though he was not directly mentioned in the article, L. B. Sullivan, the city commissioner in charge of the police department sued the magazine and four African American individuals listed as officers of the committee. Sullivan demanded retraction from the paper; after not receiving a retraction he sued. At trial, Sullivan argued that advertisements are not protected by the First Amendment and after a brief deliberation, the jury decided in favor of Sullivan awarding him damages of 500,000. [3] The award was upheld by the Alabama Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the decision of the lower courts. The Court declared that, although commercial advertisements may not be protected under the First Amendment, editorial advertisements were. Additionally, the Court ruled that the First and 14th Amendments require a public official suing for defamation to prove that the allegedly defamatory comments were made with â€Å"actual malice that is, with knowledge that if was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. †[4] With these words the Court added a new criterion to test whether a criticism was punishable. Not only did the words have to be false and cause damage to the person’s reputation, they also had to be made with the knowledge that they were false. The Sullivan decision was hailed as a victory for a free press. Ralph A. Behrend and R. Allen Behrendt both worked at same hospital; LA Times charged Dr. Behrendt with the theft of narcotics and accused him of being an addict until his health had become destroyed. [5] When actually it was Dr. Behrend, a resident doctor who committed the crime. Dr. Behrendt sued and won because the publication involved an attempted reference to an individual so vague that it could refer to more than one person[6] In early 1975, Senator William Proxmire implemented what he called the Golden Fleece Award of the Month. The award was given out to governmental agencies which sponsored programs and research that Proxmire found to be a waste of tax dollars. One Golden Fleece went to federal agencies sponsoring the research of Ronald Hutchinson, a behavioral scientist. Proxmire detailed the nonsense of Hutchinsons research on the floor of the Senate, in conferences with his staff, and in a newsletter sent to over 100,000 of his constituents. Hutchinson sued for libel, arguing that Proxmires statements defamed his character and caused him to endure financial loss and emotional anguish. This case explored the scope of protection afforded members of Congress by the Constitutions Speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution. The Court upheld the decision of the lower courts and held that Proxmires statements in his newsletters and press releases were not protected by the Speech and Debate Clause. However, in upholding this ruling, the Court also found that Proxmires statements were not made with actual malice and thus, were not libelous. Furthermore, the Court decided that Hutchinson was not a public figure since he only gained media attention because of Proxmires actions and did not personally seek it. Because of this, the standard established by New York Times v. Sullivan was not applicable. There are several important points established by this case, first, â€Å"absolute privilege has limits even when public officials utter defamatory statements as part of their perceived official duties, and individuals do not become public officials simply by virtue, nor can they be made public figures by the creation of controversy by someone else.

Sears Holding Corp Essay -- Business Analysis Management Essays Papers

Sears Holding Corp.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Kmart and Sears have been part of the retail industry of America for the last two centuries, and as of November, 2004, they will be continuing due to their merger as Sears Holding Corp. This paper will first look at the history of the two companies to see how they started and what each company set out to achieve. This section will also include why the two companies failed. Secondly, a SWOT analysis will be performed on the new company, Sears Holding Corp, to try to identify where it stands in the present. Finally, a hypothesis of how the new company is likely to be accepted by consumers and whether it is likely to succeed will be discussed. Kmart History   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  S.S. Kresge Co., the predecessor of Kmart, was founded in 1889 by Sebastian J Kresge, in Detroit Michigan. The small store, which sold everything for five and ten cents, was an instant success. By 1912 S.S. Kresge Co. had expanded to 85 stores with annual sales of more than $10 million. The 1920’s saw a larger increase in merchandise variety and prices, Kresge’s first steps to becoming a discount store. This final leap to a discount store was made in the 1950’s, when the company realized that they needed to make some changes in order to remain competitive. In 1962 S.S. Kresge Co. opened their first Kmart discount department store in a suburb of Detroit. During that same year seventeen other Kmart stores opened. Realizing that discount stores were the wave of the future S.S. Kresge changed its name to Kmart in 1977. In 1987 Kmart sold its remaining Kresge stores (kmartcorp.com).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  During the years of 1984 to 1992 Kmart bought several businesses, including Builders Square in 1984, the Sports Authority in 1990, a 90-percent stake in OfficeMax in 1991, and Borders bookstores in 1992. However, in 1995 with a close brush with bankruptcy, Kmart sold those businesses in which they had just invested and refocused its efforts back on the discount stores. During that same year Kmart began converting its traditional stores to a new high frequency format designed to improve the customer shopping experience. A new name, Big Kmart, was assigned to these stores (in April 1997) (kmartcorp.com).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  However, all the changes Kmart made throughout its long history to remain current with ideas of the times, were not enough to help Kmart maintain its competitive edge. Kmart also m... ... Levy, M. â€Å"Kmart-Sears Merger† Start Tribune 18 November 2004. Academic Universe: Business. Lexis-Nexis. UNL Lib. 28 November 2004 . Retailindustry.about.com â€Å"Retail Consolidations† 30 November 2004 Schuman, E. â€Å"Sears, Kmart Merger to Create Huge Retail IT Operation† E-Week† 17 November 2004. Academic Universe: Business. Lexis-Nexis. UNL Lib. 28 November 2004 . Schuman, E. â€Å"Where America Shops Meets Where America Shoplifts† E-Week† 19 November 2004. Academic Universe: Business. Lexis-Nexis. UNL Lib. 28 November 2004 . Searsarchives.com 29 November 2004 Snavely, B. â€Å"Grand Strategy; Converting Kmart stores will help get Sears ‘Off the Mall’† Crain’s Detroit Business 22 November 2004. Academic Universe: Business. Lexis-Nexis. UNL Lib. 28 November 2004 . Strasburg, J. â€Å"Kmart to buy Sears, Create No. 3 Retail Giant† The San Francisco Chronicle 18 November 2004. Academic Universe: Business. Lexis-Nexis. UNL Lib. 28 November 2004 . Troy, M. â€Å"Kmart Holding Corporation and Sears, Roebuck and Co. Agree to Merge† Business Wire 17 November 2004. Academic Universe: Business. Lexis-Nexis. UNL Lib. 28 November 2004 . Wikipedia.org â€Å"Kmart Corporation† 29 November 2004

Global Warming – Truth or Myth: Two Sides to Every Story

Global Warming–Truth or Myth: Two Sides to Every Story Summer 2010 Part I (Thesis): Global Warming: A Natural Occurrence There are always two sides to every story and every different point of view has a right to be heard. When it comes to the discussion of global warming—a gradual increase in the earth’s surface temperature—there are two very distinct and opposing points of view. The world seems to be split between global warming being caused by humans and it being a natural occurrence; the latter being the viewpoint that I strongly support due to the evidence I will present in detailin this paper. In contrast, I will also discuss, in Part II, the â€Å"anti-thesis† or the opposing viewpoint that humans are actually the cause of thisglobal warming phenomenon. Finally, in Part III of my paper, I will synthesize both viewpoints and discuss in great depth through much evidence as to why I believe global warming to be a natural occurrence that has happened and will continue to happen at different periods of time until the end of days. The first reason is that global warming comes and goes. The earth naturally heats up and cools down. Thirty years ago, we thought the biggest threat was global cooling and now the biggest threat is global warming. Throughout history, there have been numerous cooling and warming periods and we are now going through one of those natural warming periods, which have reached the warming levels of the Medieval Warming Period our ancestors experienced in the past, which I will explain in more detail later in this paper. The cycle of global warming and cooling has been happening long before humans have occupied the Earth and will continue to happen long after we are gone; it is a nature cycle that cannot be broken. The second reason why global warming is a natural occurrence is because the sun is what warms the earth. When the sun gets hotter, it makes sense that we get hotter too and this goes vice versa. If the sun is cooler, we get cooler. The sun has several cycles and the main one we see is the 11-year cycle, which I will explain, in greater detail in the synthesis portion of this paper. When the sun gets hotter there are more rays heating the earth, so the earth gets hotter. If we are so positive that global warming is a man-made problem, explain why Mars is also warming at the same pace as the earth is. Like Earth, Mars has also experienced warming and cooling periods throughout its history. The changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on Earth and Mars; manmade greenhouse warming has made only a small contribution to the warming happening on Earth. The third reason why global warming is a natural occurrence is that manmade CO2 is not the main source of CO2 in the atmosphere. Again, this very interesting and intriguing fact will be furtherexplained later in this paper. I believe this will surprise you, once you read the facts regarding the sources of CO2; these factors were a highly significant reason that led me to oppose humans being the actual cause of global warming. In fact, the largest source of CO2 is the ocean (Broadgate, W. , et. al. , 2009). We only contribute 3. 5% of all CO2 in the atmosphere, while the other 96. 5% is released by natural sources. Therefore, as you see, the contribution of human made CO2 is very insignificant and has very little effect on global warming. In the end, you should be able to understand why global warming is not the result of mankind abusing the Earth, and that it is, in fact, a natural cycle that has been repeated throughout history. Global Warming comes and goes. The earth naturally heats up and cools down. Right now, we are going through a natural warming cycle, which will soon befollowed by a cooling cycle. The sun is always going to control how hot and how cool it is on the earth. Scientists need to consider this; if the sun is hotter, we experience hotter temperatures; and when the sun is cooler, we experience cooler temperatures. Global warming is also not being sped up by the carbon dioxide burned into the atmosphere by humans. We only contribute 3. 5% of all CO2 in the atmosphere, while the other 96. 5% is released by natural sources. There is no denying that global warming exists. Global warming is, unfortunately, a fact of our lives as humans, but humankind is simply not the cause. It is a natural occurrence and will continue to happen even after we are gone from the earth’s surface. Part II (Anti-Thesis): Global Warming: Caused By Humans Every year the average American produces over 22 metric tons of CO2 living a normal life (â€Å"What is Carbon Neutrality,† 2008); and the United States as a whole produces 6,049,435 metric tons of CO2 yearly (â€Å"List of Countries by CO2 Emissions,† 2010). This disturbing figure is the main cause of global warming and we have yet to take responsibility for our actions. There are many different theories of what has caused global warming and the answer is mankind. Humans are the cause of global warming because of pollution, over population, and deforestation. The first reason humans are the cause of global warming is because of pollution. Pollution is one of the biggest manmade causes of global warming and it comes in many shapes and sizes. The burning fossil fuel is one thing that causes pollution. Fossil fuels are a non-renewable source of energy, such as coal, oil and natural gas and when they are burned they give off a greenhouse gas called CO2 (Chughtai, 2008). We as humans release CO2 from power plants, cars, airplanes, and buildings. About 40% of U. S. CO2 emissions stem from the burning of fossil fuels for the purpose of electricity generation; about 33% of US CO2 emissions comes from the burning of gasoline in engines of cars; about 3. 5% of CO2 emissions comes from planes, and this figure could rise to 15% by 2050; while, buildings structure account for about 12% of carbon dioxide emissions (Chughtai, 2008). While CO2 is the major greenhouse gas, methane is second most important; methane is more than 20 times as effective as CO2 at trapping heat in the atmosphere (â€Å"Methane,† 2008). Mining coal and oil allows methane to escape. Methane is naturally in the ground. When coal or oil is mined, it has to be dug up from earth and when this is process is completed, you release the methane letting it escape into the atmosphere. With the increasing amounts of CO2, methane and other greenhouse gases we emit into the atmosphere, humans are causing the intensification of the greenhouse effect known as global warming. The second reason why humans are the cause of global warming is because of over population. More people meanmore food, more methods of transportation, more power plants, and more buildings. That means more methane and CO2 will be emitted into the atmosphere because there will be more burning of fossil fuels and more agriculture. Another source of methane is from manure. Since more food is needed to feed the rapidly growing population, we will have to raise food. Animals like cows are a good source of food, which means more manure and more methane emissions. We will also have to plant more crops to grow more food and plants release CO2 into the atmosphere as well. Another problem with the increasing population is transportation; more people mean more cars and more cars means more pollution. Lastly, over population causes city growth, which also admits CO2 into the atmosphere adding to the pollution. The third reason why humans are the cause of global warming isdeforestation. Deforestation is the second principle cause of atrophic CO2 and is responsible for 25-30% of all CO2 — 1. 6 billion tons — emission into the atmosphere (â€Å"Deforestation Causes Global Warming,† 2006). This is done by burning and cutting down 34 million arches of trees a year. Scientists are saying that one day of deforestation is equivalent to the carbon footprint of 8 million people flying to New York. Each year we are losing millions of acres of rainforests, the equivalent in area to the size of The United Kingdom (Specter, 2008). Trees are 50% carbon and when they are cut down or burned, the CO2they store escapes back into the air. The destroying of tropical forests alone is throwing hundreds of millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. Two billion tons of CO2 enters the atmosphere every year from deforestation and the remaining standing forests still emit a billion tons of CO2 a year (Specter, 2008). If we keep losing our forests at this rate, we will ultimately lose the battle against climate change. In conclusion, humans are the cause of global warming because of pollution, over population and deforestation. Global warming is a result of our human activity, not natural causes. Pollution, over population and deforestation all add to the large amounts of CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere, which is increasing the rate of global warming. If we want to put an end to this global problem, we as a human race must limit our pollution, gain control of our population, and stop deforestation. If these three factors do not change, we will ultimately loose the battle of climate change. Part III: Synthesis – Global Warming: A Natural Occurrence I believe that global warming is happening due to natural causes, but I did not always feel this way. Two years ago, I took an English class and as an assignment, we had to do a debate. I missed the day that we were assigned our topics and I received the topic that global warming was happing due to natural causes. At the time, I did not agree, but after doing weeks of research, I changed my mind about global warming. Global Warming is a reoccurring phenomenon that has occurred throughout history since the beginning of time and will continue until the end of time. In fact, as I previously stated, we experienced a warming period during the Medieval Warm Period around 1100 AD when Vikings settled into Greenland and instead of the ice covered land, which fills Greenland’s vast territory today, it used to be green and the perfect place to grow crops (Keigwin, L. D. , 1996). In fact, grapes suitable for winemaking were also reported growing in England (1996); and the tree line in Scandinavia was 100–200 m higher than present (1996). This warming period was followed by a cooling period called the â€Å"Little Ice Age† from 1400 to 1850 AD that brought severe winters and cold summers to Europe (1996). Today we are enjoying global temperatures, which have warmed back to levels of the Medieval Warm Period; this means there is an ice age in our near future. The second premise that leads me to believe that global warming is a natural occurrence is the sun heating the earth. The sun is always going to control how hot and how cool it is on the earth. Scientists need to consider this. If the sun is hotter, we experience hotter temperatures; and when the sun is cooler, we experience cooler temperatures. The sun has several cycles and the main one we see is the 11-year cycle. â€Å"Every 11 years, the sun moves through a period of fewer, smaller sunspots, prominences, and flares – called a solar minimum – and a period of more, larger sunspots, prominences and flares – called a solar maximum† (â€Å"11 Year Cycle of Solar Storms Will Peak in Late 2011,† 2009). Right now we are currently at the minimum of this cycle, so the sun is in the process of increasing its heat output and we will experience a peak of heat in 2012 (â€Å"11 Year Cycle of Solar Storms Will Peak in Late 2011,† 2009). â€Å"In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide â€Å"ice caps† near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row† (Ravilious, K. , 2007). The most important greenhouse gas is water vapor, which makes up 95% of the world’s greenhouse gases. Without this amount of water vapor, the Earth would be too cold and no one could survive. Out of the other 5%, CO2 only makes up . 054% and 96. 5% of this . 054% are from natural sources, and mankind is responsible for only 3. 5% (Broadgate, W. , et. al. , 2009). A single volcano eruption emits more CO2 than all factories and manmade machinery. Moreover, animals and decaying vegetation gives off more 150 giga-tons of CO2 each year, while humans produce about 6. 5 giga-tons of CO2 a year (Broadgate, W. , et. al. , 2009). The largest source of CO2 is the ocean. As the ocean heats up it ives off CO2 into the atmosphere and when it cools down, it absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere (2009). Since the Sun is getting hotter is gradually heating the Earth, the oceans are getting hotter thus letting out more CO2. The contribution of human made CO2 is very insignificant and can barely have an effect on global warming. In the end, you should be able to understand why global warming is not the resul t of mankind abusing the Earth, and that it is, in fact, a natural cycle that has been repeated throughout history. Global Warming comes and goes. The earth naturally heats up and cools down. Right now,we are going through a natural warming cycle, which will soon be followed by a cooling cycle. The sun is always going to control how hot and how cool it is on the earth. Scientists need to consider this. If the sun is hotter, we experience hotter temperatures; and when the sun is cooler, we experience cooler temperatures. Global warming is also not sped up by the carbon dioxide burned into the atmosphere by humans. We only contribute 3. 5% of all CO2 in the atmosphere, while the other 96. 5% is released by natural sources. There is no denying that global warming exists. It is a fact of our lives as humans, but mankind is not the cause of it. It is a natural occurrence that will continue to happen even after we are long gone from the earth’s surface. References 11 Year Cycle of Solar Storms Will Peak in Late 2011. (2009, December 3). The Student Operated Press (_The SOP_). Retrieved February 26, 2010, from http://thesop. org/story/science/2007/04/27/the-next-11-year-cycle-of-solar-storms-will-start-in-march-and-peak-in-late-2011. php Broadgate, W. , Caldeira, K. , Fabry. V. , Gattuso, J. P. , Haugan, Hood, M. , et al. (2009). Research Priorities for Ocean Acidification, report from the Second Symposium on the Ocean in a High-CO2 World, Monaco, October 6-9, 2008, convened by SCOR, UNESCO-IOC, IAEA, and IGBP, 25 pp. Retrieved February 27, 2010 from http://ioc3. unesco. org/oanet/HighCO2World. html Chughtai, O. (2008, November 2). Fossil fuels. Retrieved February 27, 2010, from http://www. umich. edu/~gs265/society/fossilfuels. htm Keigwin, L. D. (29 November 1996). The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period in the Sargasso Sea. Science 274 (5292), 1503. [DOI:10. 1126/science. 274. 5292. 1503].

History of the 1900 Olympics in Paris

The 1900 Olympic Games (also called the II Olympiad) took place in Paris from May 14 to October 28, 1900. Planned as part of the immense World Exhibition, the 1900 Olympics were  under-publicized and completely disorganized.  The confusion was so great that after competing, many participants did not realize that they had just participated in the Olympics.   It is important to note, however, that it was in the 1900 Olympic Games that women first participated as contestants.   Chaos Although more athletes attended the 1900 Games than in 1896, the conditions that greeted the contestants were abysmal. Scheduling conflicts were so great that many contestants never made it to their events. Even when they did make it to their events, athletes found their areas barely usable. For instance, the areas for the running events were on grass (rather than on cinder track) and uneven. The discus and hammer throwers often found that there wasnt enough room to throw, so their shots landed in the trees. The hurdles were made out of broken telephone poles. And the swimming events were conducted in the Seine River, which had an extremely strong current. Cheating? Runners in the marathon suspected the French participants of cheating since the American runners reached the finish line without having the French athletes pass them, only to find the French runners already at the finish line seemingly refreshed.   Mostly French Participants The concept of the new, modern Olympic Games was still new and travel to other countries was long, hard, tiring, and difficult. This plus the fact that there was very little publicity for the 1900 Olympic Games meant that few countries participated and that a majority of the contestants were actually from France.  The croquet event, for example, not only had just French players, all the players were from Paris. For these very same reasons, attendance was very low. Apparently, for that very same croquet event, only one, single ticket was sold -- to a man who had traveled from Nice. Mixed Teams Unlike later Olympic Games, teams of the 1900s Olympics were often composed of individuals from more than one country. In some cases, men and women could also be on the same team. One such case was 32-year-old  Hà ©là ¨ne de Pourtalà ¨s, who became the first female Olympic champion. She participated in the 1-2 ton sailing event aboard the  Là ©rina, with her husband and nephew. First Woman to Win a Gold Medal As mentioned above,  Hà ©là ¨ne de Pourtalà ¨s was the first woman to win gold while competing in the 1-2 ton sailing event. The first woman to win gold in an individual event was British Charlotte Cooper, a megastar tennis player, who won both singles and mixed doubles.