10 Matching Annotations
  1. Sep 2018
  2. Oct 2017
    1. Anti-vaccinations groups, for example, have reliedon viral videos to sell the panic of vaccination side-effects

      Unfortunately, this is very true. We can say the same about fake news. Such practices can contribute to hurting the validity of the overall data. The Twitter data is not collected with systematic investigation or systematic collection methods. This data collection method heavily relies on “public opinion”. I do think that if one wants to find general public sentiment or general public opinion, this is a great way to do it.

  3. Sep 2017
    1. Calling people out using the constructionist ideals — The American government is not living up to their high ideals.

      Poetry as a way to express frustration when there is no way to go up against actual US military power. A weapon of the weak; a powerful message.

  4. Oct 2016
  5. Sep 2016
  6. Jun 2016
    1. How’s your film history? When I say, “Fatty Arbuckle,” what comes to mind? The film comedian who raped a girl with a Coke bottle and killed her, right? When you do your homework, you discover not only that there was no Coke bottle, but that Arbuckle had nothing to do with the woman’s death and was fully exonerated in court.

      The guy was totally innocent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roscoe_Arbuckle

    2. There is also the matter of the system that we—the liberal elite—are quietly creating in which all abuse claims are trusted at face value and any questioning of them is subsequently shamed. I understand that a big part of our culture, our rape culture, is founded on ignoring or disbelieving victims and the societal imperative among the sensitive and educated is to correct that. But without scrutiny even where it’s uncomfortable, we are putting justice at grave risk. So are abuse victims, thereby, at grave risk. Weide’s exercise strikes me as morally sound, at heart.
  7. Feb 2014
    1. The cases on the subject are collected in a footnote to Somerset Bank v. Edmund, 10 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 726; 76 Ohio St. Rep. 396, the head-note to which reads: "Public policy and sound morals alike forbid that a public officer should demand or receive for services performed by him in the discharge of official duty any other or further remuneration or reward than that prescribed or allowed by law." This rule of public policy has been relaxed only in those instances where the legislature for sufficient public reason has seen fit by statute to extend the stimulus of a reward to the public without distinction, as in the case of United States v. Matthews, 173 U.S. 381, where the attorney-general, under an act for "the detection and prosecution of crimes against the United States," made a public offer of reward sufficiently liberal and generic to comprehend the services of a federal deputy marshal. Exceptions of that character upon familiar principles serve to emphasize the correctness of the rule, as one based upon sound public policy.

      1) A public officer cannot demand or receive remuneration or a reward for carrying out the duty of his job as a matter of public policy and morality

      2) However, it is not against public policy for a police officer to receive a reward in performance of his legal duty if the legislature passes a statute giving the reward to the public at large in furtherance of some public policy - such as preventing treason against the US.

    2. MINTURN, J. The plaintiff occupied the position of a special police officer, in Atlantic City, and incidentally was identified with the work of the prosecutor of the pleas of the county. He possessed knowledge concerning the theft of certain diamonds and jewelry from the possession of the defendant, who had advertised a reward for the recovery of the property. In this situation he claims to have entered into a verbal contract with defendant, whereby she agreed to pay him $500 if he could procure for her the names and addresses of the thieves. As a result of his meditation with the police authorities the diamonds and jewelry were recovered, and plaintiff brought this suit to recover the promised reward.
      • Plaintiff makes a verbal contract with defendant. In return for $500, plaintiff will find defendant's stolen jewels.
      • Plaintiff had knowledge of whereabouts of jewels at contract formation.
      • Plaintiff is a special police officer and has dealings with prosecutor's office.
      • Defendant published advertisement for reward.
      • Plaintiff finds stolen goods and arranges return.
    3. The judgment below for that reason must be reversed.

      Court reverses decision of lower court in favor of the plaintiff since he was characterized as a public official.