On January 14th of 2018, 12 people from a volunteer group were arrested for handing out food to the homeless.

To provide some backstory to this situation, a community group called “Break The Ban” were distributing food and other items to the homeless population at a park in California. According to the police officers that arrived, they were violating a ban on sharing food in city-owned public areas, which was recently passed by the City of El Cajon in 2017. The reason for this ban was to stop the spread of Hepatitis A. the police cited some of the volunteers to jail but did not take them. But, for the two volunteers they arrested are scheduled to appear in court. The group was outraged by the act and is planning to fight the citations and the food-sharing ban.

There was another case in which this incident has occurred. According to Forbes, in Fort Lauderdale, police arrested a 90-year old man and two ministers in 2014 for trying to share their food with the homeless. In October of 2014, the city enacted an ordinance that bans sharing food in public parks, unless they have a permit from the city. As a result of this situation, the organization arrested (Food Not Bombs) sued the city of Fort Lauderdale on the basis of the ordinance violated their right to free speech and free association, and the ordinance was “unconstitutionally vague.” At first, a federal district court dismissed the case since food sharing events were outside the scope of the First Amendment since it did not convey a “particularized message.”

But, under that line of reasoning, that sounds like the First Amendment is confined to expressions conveying a particularized message. So, as a result, the case was ruled that Food Not Bombs does have a First Amendment right to share food. The case was sent back down to the lower courts to determine if the city’s ordinance was in violation of those rights. The city of Lauderdale has not responded to the request yet.

Explain your answers and for more details, you can read the article this piece was sourced from here:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/homeless-el-cajon-california-arrests_us_5a5de4f4e4b0fcbc3a1355f4?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

And / or

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2018/08/27/federal-court-first-amendment-protects-sharing-food-with-homeless-people/#fe8283b4884

Questions (answer them all!):

1. How does the First Amendment apply to these news stories?

2. Why do you feel the ordinance being issued to prevent the spread of Hepatitis A was or was not justified? 

3. Are there laws in your community restricting feeding the homeless, if so what are they, how do you feel about there being or not being laws about this activity in your community, and what can you do to support/change those local laws/policies?

4. (High School Students only) Even if you disagree with the policy in this case, imagine that there are some activities that people volunteer for or donate to that are meant to ‘make the world a better place’, but which should be managed or limited by local laws. How should local governments and law makers decide if an activity requires them to get involved in those activities (ex: Should sheltering homeless animals and feeding the homeless face the same kinds of restriction)?

Internet celebrity Grumpy Cat should be doing anything but frowning after receiving over $700,000 in a lawsuit.

The frowny feline known as Grumpy Cat’s rise to popularity began in 2012 when her down and dismissive attitude won over the hearts of the meme market. Grumpy Cat’s stardom prompted her owner to monetize on that success, so she started Grumpy Cat Limited. The potential for profits from the sourpuss generated licensing deals with numerous companies.  One of those companies was Grenade (a beverage company).

Unfortunately, a licensing deal between the two companies to allow for the creation of iced coffees called “Grumpy Cat Grumppuccino” did not end well.  Grenade may have thought they weren’t doing anything wrong when they produced a line of “Grumpy Cat Roasted Coffee” products.

And that is where the real grump begins.

Drawn into a dispute, Grumpy Cat (the company, not the cat) brought Grenade to federal court in a copyright lawsuit.  Grumpy Cat Limited claimed the roasted coffee featuring Grumpy Cat and Grumppuccino t-shirts which Grenade was also making and selling was not part of their licensing agreement.  The company claimed in court they had only licensed the use of Grumpy Cat for the ‘Grumpuccino Iced Coffees’.  Grumpy Cat Limited claimed that by using Grumpy cat to sell another coffee line and t-shirts, Grenade was stealing from them.  

Grenade then turned around on Grumpy Cat Limited and filed a countersuit. They stated the crabby cat wasn’t promoting the iced coffee the way the licensing agreement had said she would.  Basically, Grenade claimed the grump’s slump of a movie career was a violation by Grumpy Cat Limited of stipulations in the licensing agreement.  To support the claim of contract violation, the company’s attorney pointed out an instance where the owner failed to mention the Grumpuccino Iced Coffee in a live appearance on Fox News (as promised), and the minor amount of social media posts about the chilled beverage from accounts controlled by Grumpy Cat Limited.

These claims though fell on deaf ears as the jury threw out the countersuit and decided in favor of Grumpy Cat Limited, awarding the cat (or at least her company) more than $700,000. Following this decision, the favorable feline can now hold her head high while hanging her frown low.

Questions to Consider:

1.a) The 7th amendment of the constitution guarantees the right of trial by jury in serious criminal cases and certain civil ones like this.  Both sides, in this case, are entitled to request a jury trial to decide the verdict.  Grumpy Cat is a known icon on the internet and is bound to have some sort of diverse fanbase.  Do you believe a person’s status affect juries in court, and if so, how?

1.b) Have you seen or heard of any cases where someone’s high or low status affected the outcome of a trial? Share details, or if you haven’t heard of a case like that occurring, explain why you think that is.

1.c.) Do you think Grumpy Cat’s status was a factor in the outcome of her court case, and if so what can courts do to ensure an unbiased outcome is achieved in an otherwise fair trial?

2.a ) Grumpy Cat Limited’s initial lawsuit was over Grenade’s infringement of copyright. What are some specific copyright laws that protect brands from being misused by other companies?

2.b) What is the difference between licensing a product and enforcing a copyright or trademark?

3.a) After being sued by Grumpy Cat Limited, Grenade launched a countersuit against the company in an attempt to defend themselves. They claimed that Grumpy Cat Limited didn’t deliver on the duties they promised to fulfill in the agreement (like the lack of social media posts, and the Fox News shout-out that didn‘t happen). If Grenade was claiming they used Grumpy Cat on the other coffee and t-shirts to make up for the value that Grumpy’s company wasn’t delivering on despite being contractually obligated to do so, should they have at least had a chance to win in court?

3.b) Imagine that (A) Grenade’s extra use of Grumpy’s image was stealing even though (B) they weren’t getting what they paid for in the original agreement, and the Grenade knew that their actions could be classified as stealing.  If those were the facts, why might Grenade have still countersued Grumpy Cat Limited, and what would the possible benefits be?

-Submitted by J. Floyd

For more information or material for your answers, you can explore the original story this article was inspired by here:

Internet celebrity Grumpy Cat should be doing anything but frowning after receiving over $700,000 in a lawsuit.

The frowny feline known as Grumpy Cat’s rise to popularity began in 2012 when her down and dismissive attitude won over the hearts of the meme market. Grumpy Cat’s stardom prompted her owner to monetize on that success, so she started Grumpy Cat Limited. The potential for profits from the sourpuss generated licensing deals with numerous companies.  One of those companies was Grenade (a beverage company).

Unfortunately, a licensing deal between the two companies to allow for the creation of iced coffees called “Grumpy Cat Grumppuccino” did not end well.  Grenade may have thought they weren’t doing anything wrong when they produced a line of “Grumpy Cat Roasted Coffee” products.

And that is where the real grump begins.

Drawn into a dispute, Grumpy Cat (the company, not the cat) brought Grenade to federal court in a copyright lawsuit.  Grumpy Cat Limited claimed the roasted coffee featuring Grumpy Cat and Grumppuccino t-shirts which Grenade was also making and selling was not part of their licensing agreement.  The company claimed in court they had only licensed the use of Grumpy Cat for the ‘Grumpuccino Iced Coffees’.  Grumpy Cat Limited claimed that by using Grumpy cat to sell another coffee line and t-shirts, Grenade was stealing from them.  

Grenade then turned around on Grumpy Cat Limited and filed a countersuit. They stated the crabby cat wasn't promoting the iced coffee the way the licensing agreement had said she would.  Basically, Grenade claimed the grump’s slump of a movie career was a violation by Grumpy Cat Limited of stipulations in the licensing agreement.  To support the claim of contract violation, the company’s attorney pointed out an instance where the owner failed to mention the Grumpuccino Iced Coffee in a live appearance on Fox News (as promised), and the minor amount of social media posts about the chilled beverage from accounts controlled by Grumpy Cat Limited.

These claims though fell on deaf ears as the jury threw out the countersuit and decided in favor of Grumpy Cat Limited, awarding the cat (or at least her company) more than $700,000. Following this decision, the favorable feline can now hold her head high while hanging her frown low.

Questions to Consider:

1.a) The 7th amendment of the constitution guarantees the right of trial by jury in serious criminal cases and certain civil ones like this.  Both sides, in this case, are entitled to request a jury trial to decide the verdict.  Grumpy Cat is a known icon on the internet and is bound to have some sort of diverse fanbase.  Do you believe a person’s status affect juries in court, and if so, how?

1.b) Have you seen or heard of any cases where someone's high or low status affected the outcome of a trial? Share details, or if you haven’t heard of a case like that occurring, explain why you think that is.

1.c.) Do you think Grumpy Cat's status was a factor in the outcome of her court case, and if so what can courts do to ensure an unbiased outcome is achieved in an otherwise fair trial?

2.a ) Grumpy Cat Limited’s initial lawsuit was over Grenade’s infringement of copyright. What are some specific copyright laws that protect brands from being misused by other companies?

2.b) What is the difference between licensing a product and enforcing a copyright or trademark?

3.a) After being sued by Grumpy Cat Limited, Grenade launched a countersuit against the company in an attempt to defend themselves. They claimed that Grumpy Cat Limited didn’t deliver on the duties they promised to fulfill in the agreement (like the lack of social media posts, and the Fox News shout-out that didn‘t happen). If Grenade was claiming they used Grumpy Cat on the other coffee and t-shirts to make up for the value that Grumpy’s company wasn’t delivering on despite being contractually obligated to do so, should they have at least had a chance to win in court?

3.b) Imagine that (A) Grenade’s extra use of Grumpy’s image was stealing even though (B) they weren’t getting what they paid for in the original agreement, and the Grenade knew that their actions could be classified as stealing.  If those were the facts, why might Grenade have still countersued Grumpy Cat Limited, and what would the possible benefits be?

-Submitted by J. Floyd

For more information or material for your answers, you can explore the original story this article was inspired by here:

The right to vote is a given liberty to all U.S citizens. This said anything given can be taken away. A felony conviction can cause a citizen to lose this precious right. In Florida, felons who have served their time have struggled to obtain their voting rights back. After taking their fight to Federal Court, things may have gotten better for people who’ve paid their debt to society.

Before the federal lawsuit, Florida’s felons would have to go before an Executive Clemency Board and request that their voting rights be restored.  Despite being a voter-elected position, Florida’s Governor is one of the people who have a seat on the state’s Executive Clemency Board.

Governor Scott had been the head panel member of the Board by nine people with past felonies.   They decided to sue for their rights back, and used one incident in particular to make their case:

At one point, Scott had restored the voting rights of a white man who had cast an illegal ballot in 2010 (an election during which he had voted for Scott - or so he claimed during the hearing which the Governor was present at).  Around the same time, Scott had denied five other requests, with four of those requests coming from African-Americans. With Scott being a touted-Republican and most of Florida’s African Americans being registered Democrats, the Governor’s judgment and use of power were brought into question by the lawsuit.

Politics aren’t supposed to play into the decision to restore voter rights. Florida’s intended design of the system was one where the Clemency Board reviews applicants eligible for restoration based if they pass the criteria. Eligibility is available five years after completion of a sentence with full payment of restitution. Soon after the Office of Executive Clemency inspect the applicant and decide from a range of factors the possible acceptance of restoration.

U.S District Judge Mark Walker’s questioned Scott’s “unfettered discretion in restoring voting rights”. The Judge’s decision in Federal Court ruled Florida’s right restoration system in violation of the 1st and 14th amendments.  Now as a result of the lawsuit, Governor Scott is the state’s first to have restrictions placed on his role in restoring felons’ rights to vote.  

In defense of Florida’s practices, Scott’s communication director stated: “The discretion of the clemency board over the restoration of felons’ rights in Florida has been in place for decade[s] and overseen by multiple governors.”

Florida’s restoration system will now undergo changes as a result of Judge Walker’s ruling, and the nine people involved in the lawsuit will once again be able to attempt to restore their voting rights.

Questions to Consider:

Nine people who filed this case to report issues with the process of rights restorations in Florida. They didn’t believe in the justice of that system, and the judge ended up ruling in their favor.  In his decision, the judge cited Florida’s state government for violating  the 1st and 14th amendments which lead to his final decision.

1.a) In what ways could Florida have violated these amendments? Do you agree or disagree with the Judge’s claim that these violations occurred?

1. b) The nine people were also burdened with the financial cost of paying for their case. Are they eligible for any kind of compensation for the expenses they took on, now that the case seems to have been decided in their favor? Tell us what laws support your answer.

1.c) The federal court had to intervene to establish balance for the restoration process in Florida because of the potential bias a governor may have.  With this restriction in place, how much authority does Florida have when it comes to returning right to their citizens, and is that too much or too little authority for the state to have?

2.a) A 2016 survey led statisticians to estimate that 1.68 million Floridians had lost their voting rights. These statistics differ around the country.  How many people in Nevada have lost their voting rights this year so far, and what about in the past 10 years?

2.b) How would someone in Nevada get their voting rights restored and how is that process different than the one in Florida?

3) As you’ve just learned, a citizens lose certain rights after being convicted of a felony. Once they’ve served their sentences, many of these people try to reform their lives to become better than they were before. Even though they’ve ‘served their time’, some will continue to experience ongoing punishment when some of their rights remain revoked (until they take additional steps to have some of those rights restored).   Does restricting felons’ rights after they’ve served out their sentences do enough to help them learn from their mistake, or does the policy of not instantly restoring their rights (like the right to vote) after they’ve been released from prison go too far? Explain your reasoning!

-Submitted by J. Floyd

The right to vote is a given liberty to all U.S citizens. This said anything given can be taken away. A felony conviction can cause a citizen to lose this precious right. In Florida, felons who have served their time have struggled to obtain their voting rights back. After taking their fight to Federal Court, things may have gotten better for people who’ve paid their debt to society.

Before the federal lawsuit, Florida’s felons would have to go before an Executive Clemency Board and request that their voting rights be restored.  Despite being a voter-elected position, Florida’s Governor is one of the people who have a seat on the state’s Executive Clemency Board.

Governor Scott had been the head panel member of the Board by nine people with past felonies.   They decided to sue for their rights back, and used one incident in particular to make their case:

At one point, Scott had restored the voting rights of a white man who had cast an illegal ballot in 2010 (an election during which he had voted for Scott - or so he claimed during the hearing which the Governor was present at).  Around the same time, Scott had denied five other requests, with four of those requests coming from African-Americans. With Scott being a touted-Republican and most of Florida’s African Americans being registered Democrats, the Governor’s judgment and use of power were brought into question by the lawsuit.

Politics aren’t supposed to play into the decision to restore voter rights. Florida’s intended design of the system was one where the Clemency Board reviews applicants eligible for restoration based if they pass the criteria. Eligibility is available five years after completion of a sentence with full payment of restitution. Soon after the Office of Executive Clemency inspect the applicant and decide from a range of factors the possible acceptance of restoration.

 U.S District Judge Mark Walker’s questioned Scott’s “unfettered discretion in restoring voting rights”. The Judge’s decision in Federal Court ruled Florida’s right restoration system in violation of the 1st and 14th amendments.  Now as a result of the lawsuit, Governor Scott is the state’s first to have restrictions placed on his role in restoring felons’ rights to vote.  

In defense of Florida’s practices, Scott’s communication director stated:“The discretion of the clemency board over the restoration of felons’ rights in Florida has been in place for decade[s] and overseen by multiple governors.”

Florida’s restoration system will now undergo changes as a result of Judge Walker’s ruling, and the nine people involved in the lawsuit will once again be able to attempt to restore their voting rights.

Questions to Consider:

Nine people who filed this case to report issues with the process of rights restorations in Florida. They didn't believe in the justice of that system, and the judge ended up ruling in their favor.  In his decision, the judge cited Florida's state government for violating  the 1st and 14th amendments which lead to his final decision.

1.a) In what ways could Florida have violated these amendments? Do you agree or disagree with the Judge’s claim that these violations occurred?

1. b) The nine people were also burdened with the financial cost of paying for their case. Are they eligible for any kind of compensation for the expenses they took on, now that the case seems to have been decided in their favor? Tell us what laws support your answer.

1.c) The federal court had to intervene to establish balance for the restoration process in Florida because of the potential bias a governor may have.  With this restriction in place, how much authority does Florida have when it comes to returning right to their citizens, and is that too much or too little authority for the state to have?

2.a) A 2016 survey led statisticians to estimate that 1.68 million Floridians had lost their voting rights. These statistics differ around the country.  How many people in Nevada have lost their voting rights this year so far, and what about in the past 10 years?

2.b) How would someone in Nevada get their voting rights restored and how is that process different than the one in Florida?

3) As you’ve just learned, a citizens lose certain rights after being convicted of a felony. Once they’ve served their sentences, many of these people try to reform their lives to become better than they were before. Even though they’ve ‘served their time’, some will continue to experience ongoing punishment when some of their rights remain revoked (until they take additional steps to have some of those rights restored).   Does restricting felons’ rights after they’ve served out their sentences do enough to help them learn from their mistake, or does the policy of not instantly restoring their rights (like the right to vote) after they’ve been released from prison go too far? Explain your reasoning!

-Submitted by J. Floyd

Have you ever heard of people receiving Facebook “friend suggestions” that were so accurate that they were creepy? Maybe one night they attended a party and only talked to one person, then somehow  woke up the next morning to find that Facebook had  suggested the person friend-request them!

It happens more often than you think, and there is a perfectly legal reason for it! The social media site uses technology to connect two people based on the metadata from cameras used to upload photos and the data embedded into those pictures (data like GPS coordinates where the picture was taken). Even scratches and dust marks in the pictures could be used to identify a specific camera that was used to take the picture.

Facebook is legally allowed to do all of this, but people only know that the company even had the idea to do that because of a series of patents they filed in 2014 and 2015.  If someone else uses their invention (in this case the technology) without permission, they can be taken to court and sued!

One of the patents is titled ‘Systems and methods for utilizing wireless communications to suggest connections for a user’ and explains how logged smartphone data can be used to make friend recommendations. The algorithm incorporates other information as well, like the amount of time between two wireless communications (uploading and receiving a photo) or the signal strength at the time of the data exchange.  With those seemingly impersonal bits of information, Facebook is able to recognize and identify when two people are walking together or facing each other.

Another of the patents is titled ‘Associating cameras with users and objects in a social networking system’ and highlights how data from photos uploaded to the site can be used to connect people. The ‘data’ that is compared isn’t just 1s and 0s… The patent details how the information used to identify the photographer could be as simple as a file name or as complex as a dust particle on a camera lens that appears in the same place in multiple photos (which suggest they were taken by the same camera, like a photographic fingerprint).

Even if the processes Facebook patented are lawful, what are the implications for non-users that get identified by the algorithm?  Imagine this:

You’re a privacy hound who doesn’t use social media sites because you like to control the use of your data simply because you don’t like mega corporations.  Let’s say you’re also a photographer, and you post photos to a website.  If a fan of yours shared a photo on Facebook and labeled you as the photographer, would Facebook have a legal right to identify other pictures you’d taken with the same camera even if you weren’t the person uploading them to the website? What could a non-user do to fight this system?  Explain your answers.  If you need more information first, you can read the article this piece was sourced from here:  

http://in.pcmag.com/facebook/118580/news/facebook-can-track-you-using-the-dust-and-scratches-on-your

Pizza is one of the most universally enjoyed dishes and a food most people won’t turn down. An alleged story about the temptation to eat the baked dough topped with delicious proteins, cheeses and veggies ended up costing four officers their jobs.

Jeff Clegg is one of the officers who was fired.  Clegg claimed that employees of a pizza shop would park illegally and place menus visibly in their car window.  When a parking enforcement officer saw the menu, they were not to write a ticket.  If a parking ticket did happen to be issued, it was usually voided.

Clegg’s allegations also say that the officers didn’t write tickets to the employees for over two years because of the deal.  Apparently the parking enforcers would frequent the pizza shop so often that they were on a first name basis with the workers.  Some of the officers would even enter through the back and just grab their own meal!

The officers were in a situation where they could have issued 3 tickets a day to the pizza parlor’s problematic parkers, with each ticket having a fine of $25.  At first, $25 per ticket may not seem like that large of an amount.  Over the course of 2 years however, $75 in parking tickets each day would have amounted to over $19,000 in missed fines!

Following an investigation by a city official who’d heard about Clegg’s allegations about the parking-for-pizza scheme, Clegg and three other officers were fired.  Shortly after that happened, the pizza restaurant’s owner complained directly to the city in person about how upset he was about the officers being fired.  At the same time though, he denied that there was ever a free meal deal happening.

A second investigation was launched by a police agency, but no charges ended up being filed against the pizza parlor’s staff nor the 4 officers that had lost their jobs.

If charges had ended up being filed as a result of the investigations, what laws would the enforcement officers have been accused of breaking and what penalties might they face?  What charges could be brought against the pizza restaurant owner, and what penalties might he be dealt? In answering both of those questions, keep in mind that this deal could have cost the city up to $19,000 in missed fines.

Suppose the allegations were eventually proven to not be true though: Could the officers take action against the city for being fired over false accusations?   If you think they could, explain how you think the officers would benefit from suing the city – what would they get out of it?   If you don’t think they could, explain what makes you think they’re prevented from filing a case against their employers.

http://kutv.com/news/local/slc-parking-enforcement-officers-fired-for-taking-kickbacks-for-not-writing-tickets