I will pay for the following article Discussion 1 and 2. The work is to be 2 pages with three to five sources, with in-text citations and a reference page.

I will pay for the following article Discussion 1 and 2. The work is to be 2 pages with three to five sources, with in-text citations and a reference page. (Section) Due) Introduction The modern society is increasingly facing a myriad of challenges resulting from social, political, economic as well as environmental dimensions which are usually triggered by human activities. The solution to such challenges requires proper investigations and provision of such information to the public and experts that can offer valid solutions. However, in the effort to gather such information conflicts may arise between different stakeholders: The persons involved in the process of information gathering and the persons who might be the trigger to such problems (Citizen Journalism n.d).

Discussion 1: Is it possible for Bob to demand identity of the anonymous writer?

Libel basically encompasses the negative exposure of ones’ character to the public through the print media or general publishing. In most cases libel may lead to a person being perceived negatively, hated and exposed to shameful facets of daily life. For instance: A libel may include a journalist providing the public with published information that exposes a politician of corruption acts or even murder and drug businesses. this includes published internet sources (eMedia Law Insider n.d.).

. In regards to Bob’s case, it is possible for him to demand the exposure of the identity of the person who posted the defamatory statements about him on the internet. There are various stipulations in the law that gives Bob the capacity to demand for such information: To begin with, Bob has the right to demand for such information provided. he gives the court a prima facie that shows that he was actually exposed negatively on the internet. He should also provide evidence on the extent of damage he underwent after the comments in accordance to the law (eMedia Law Insider n.d.)

Will Bob lose the case against Campus Trash Mouth?

Campus Trash Mouth is a website that allows anonymous writers to post comments. in this perspective, Bob may not win the case against Campus Trash Mouth since his allegations that he was negatively exposed on their website will depend on whether or not the comments were posted by the Campus Trash Mouth website themselves or it was done by an anonymous writer. However, according to the case study, it is evident that the defamatory statements were posted by an anonymous writer which renders them completely unreliable for the allegations. (The comments were posted by an anonymous person hence Campus Trash Mouth may not be held responsible)

Additionally, Bob may also lose the case against Campus Trash Mouth on the condition that there are various stipulations in the law that may not necessitate the owners of the website to provide the identity of the anonymous writers. For instance: The court may underscore the fact that the decision by a person to remain as an anonymous speaker or writer in the internet is a facet of the freedom of speech in accordance to the First Amendment. whereby a person has the right/ freedom to omit or add certain contents or dimensions of his or her writing and even speech (Wirenius 2000)

Discussion 2: Howard Cunningham

In order to win his private fact case, Howard Cunningham will have to provide a pram facie that the file that contained his previous case was actually exposed to the public and accessed by the public. He should also ensure that he gives facts on the level harm caused upon him by exposure of such information. However, Howard may not win the case due to the fact that various stipulations within the libel law supports the exposure of certain information that are ascribed to public figures or government official provided they are supported by facts.

Additionally, Howard will need to provide evidence that indeed his pictures were taken without his acknowledgement. However, certain legal parameters may not support Howard’s argument in that: certain aspects of jurisdictions do not consider the utilization of a photo of a private property as an intrusion of privacy. Owing to the fact that Howard is a public figure, the case may be tried in support of the celebrity privacy laws.

Reference

eMedia Law Insider (n.d.). Retrieved September 29, 2012, from http://www.emedialaw.com

Citizen Journalism (n.d). Reporting and News Writing. Retrieved September 27, 2012, from http://journalism.about.com

Wirenius, J. F. (2000). First Amendment, first principles: verbal acts and freedom of speech. New York: Holmes & Meier.