NO Plaguarism
CHAPTEn * lConstitutional Authority ,o Regulote Basiness theses ol n're cl'ranicai e ngineering graciuaLe stude nts. Facultv srnglecl or-rt lbr "ignoring therr e thrcal responsibilittes ancl contributit-tg to an atmosphe re ol negligcnce lowar.1 isslles ol acacler-nic misconcluct" incLuclccl Jay Cnnasekera, pro- fessor ol mechanical engrneering and chair ol the depart- ment. These Iindings r.vere publicized in a press conference. The ur-riversity then prohibitecl Gunasekera from advising graduate students. He filed a suit in a federal district court against Dennis lru.in, the dean ol Russ College, and others, lbr r.iolaring his "due-process nghts w,hen they publicized accusaLlons about his role in plagiarism b,v his graduare student advisees r.r.ithout providing him rvirh a meanrnglul opporrunitl' to clear his name" in public. huin asked rhe court to dismiss the surt. Whar does clue process lequrre rn these circunrstances? Why? lGunascho.cr r: h'rr:rn, 551 F3d 4nl loll- t rr 200q)l , ', Commerce CIause. Under Lhe lecLeral Ser Ol'lencler Registration ancl Notilication Act (SORNA), sex oIlenclers must register as sex ofenclers and upclate their rugrstraLLt,n r'vhen the1, travel from one siaLe to anorher. David Hall, a convicted sex offencler in Nelv York. moved liom Ner,i, York to Vlrginia, u,here he livecl fot part ol a year'. When he returned to Ne\. York, he r,r.as chatged u,,irh the led- eral offense of failing tp register as a sex offer-rder u,hrie rn Virginia, as required b1'SOR\A 1n his clefense, he claimed that SOR\A rr'as unconsrirurional because Congress had no authorit to criminahze interstate trar-el stnce no commerce r,vas rnvoh'ed. The district court disnlissed the Lndictmenr. The government appealed, conter-rcling thar the statutc is ciistrict court n-rlecl u'r the ACLUs livor. De\Veese appealed to the U.S Court ol Appeals lor Lhe Slrth Circuit, claim, ing Lhat hrs purposc in displaying the -[en Commanclmenrs poster was not to prolllote re Jrgion. Rather, he claimed to be expressing hrs r.jews altout tlvo r,r,,arring legal phrlosophies that motivate behavior and consecluences-moral relatir- ism and rnoral absolutism (u,hich \'as represenred by rhe Ten Commandments). DeWeese also statecl that he usecl the poster 'occasionalh. in educatronal efforLs" r,r'hen speak- ing to communirl. groups to "express his beliel that God is thc ultim:rte aulhonl\. Doe, .lisplar tnq j no>Let ul the lcn --.-_..-..-=--:__-1.::-- CommanJmcnl. in l.oulrtroom rin.alr tne e-Lahli>hmcnr mr-'Iti,rh',r ;ffior?ffi. - .--1:------:--: lSUUq-tArirr r r.rrr1 Crr rl Libe rlies Liniut oJ Ohkt Foundation, 1rr,. r: D, \,',',, o1l p 1,1 +2-l rnth err'. 20 llt] A Question of Ethics. Free Speech. Arir hrll ()rrrn.s r'in.l nl.rr.rgr's tlv BcibotL lsland Village Inn, tt rtstcurrttnL ttntl b.l. in N.il/for I Btuth. Culilornra. Annt' Lcnrcn orvrrs [/rr' "lsland Cottage," a residence across an alley from the tnn. Lemen oJten complained to the authoities about excessiye noise and the behavior of the inn's customers, whom she called "drunhs" and "whores." Lemen rekrred to Theresa Toll, Aic's wiJe, as "Madam Wore." Lemen told the inn's bartender Ewa Cooh that Cooh"worhedt'or Satan," was5citan wife ," andwas " going to hay e S atan's cltildren." She told the inn's neighb or s that it was "a whorehouse" with "prostitutton going on inside" and that it sold lllegal drugs, sold alcohol to minors, made 'sex yid- eos," wa.s invol''ted in child pornography, had "Maf.a connec- tions," encouraged "lesbian activity," and stay ed open until 6:00 a.m. Lemen also yoiced her cornplaints to potential customers, and the inn's sales dropped more than 20 percent. The inn fled a suit in a CaliJornia state court against Lemen, asserting defa- mation and other claims. IBalboa.Island Village Inn, Inc. v Lemen, 40 Cal.4th 1141, 57 CalRptr.3d 320 (200n1 l. Are Lemen's statements about the inn's owners, cuslom- ers, and activities protected by the U.S. Consrirution? Should such statements be protected? In whose lavor should the court rule? Why? 2, Did Lemen behave uriethically in tlie circumsrances of this case? Explain. m , rrlt.1 trnder thr \omm(r're .lau... D,,cs th.rL ..rniention , v ];i}!:i:Tllf::"1';i,i,i'*' noLi lu,ircd srares ri Harr' ' rj Establishment Clause. lames De\ecse. rrn Ohio .juclge, hung t*o posters rn his conr-trorrr.t. one sho\ing the Bill ol Rights ancl the other shorving rhe Ten Conrntrnclments. The American Civil Liberties Union I.\CLU) brought an acrion against DeW.eese in a fecleral clisurct courL. The ACLU alleged that the Ten Commanclmenrs posrer r-rolated rhe esrablish- ment clause and reclliested an injur-rcrion to prevent De\'eese lrom continuing to display the poster in his courtroom. The