|
Paper Assignment #2
Read the April 2000 "summary adjudication" in the Los Angeles Times v. Free Republic case (on the online syllabus, available on Lexis-Nexis -- be sure you are reading the correct document). Write a "brief" of the decision.
A "brief" is a summary of the relevant details of the case and the thrust of the decision. It is unlike the first assignment, in that you are not responsible for analyzing the decision or working out your own argument about it. The task is to clearly and efficiently explain the case. The brief should include:
1. The title of the case
2. The facts and historical / social context of the case.
3. The legal questions presented by the case. Usually one asks who is asking for what, and on what constitutional grounds. Since the fact that this is a copyright case is undisputed by either party, instead briefly describe the constitutional conflict.
4. Who won the conflict? What is the legal holding (conclusion)?
5. Why? Outline the logic that supports the majority opinion. Include the name of the justice who wrote the decision. Explain how the holding answers the constitutional question. (This is the most important part of the brief.)
(6. If there were a dissenting opinion, you would also want to briefly summarize the argument it makes. That is not an issue here.)
A brief is a useful study tool when you are reading actual decisions, which can be lengthy and dense. Because you will be reading decisions in the DeCSS and Napster cases, and will have to write a final paper about one of them, you might want to "brief" those decisions for your own benefit. So consider this assignment a practice run.
Your essay is due in class on Tuesday, July 24th. Once again, it should be 2 - 3 pages long; do not roll onto that fourth page. This requires you to be economical in describing the case. And, again, please attend not only to the content of your brief but the quality of the writing in it; even a summary should be well-written.
|