Recent orders
Are daily fantasy sports even legal
Summary of Articles
Are daily fantasy sports even legal?
Fantasy Sports serve as some of the highly-lucrative and most common forms of illegal gambling in the current world. Specifically, over 57 million Americans participate in fantasy sports. America’s legal system does not provide clear and strong regulations and laws governing the betting industry. For example, a 2006 law which tends to exempt skill-based betting seems to promote the growth of fantasy football. Besides, it is difficult for the Federal and State governments to establish suitable laws for controlling daily fantasy sports because they (fantasy sports) rapidly evolve. Moreover, different states treat fantasy sports differently; some treat it as a gambling product while others do not (Philips, 2015).
Sports gambling in U.S.: Too prevalent to remain illegal?
There is a large black market for sports gambling in America following prohibitions by laws that were established in the early 90s. Accordingly, some leaders feel that the existing regulations and laws should be revised to allow appropriate expansion of the betting industry and enable the governments to collect more revenue in forms of taxes from gambling. History of gambling in the US assumes a cyclic nature in the following order; legalization, scandal then prohibition. That is, a state would legalize gambling to facilitate collection of funds; then a scandal ensues where individuals take advantage of the gambling to steal money; eventually, the respective state bans gambling, and the cycle starts again with a fight for the legalization of gambling. On the contrary, Britain and other European nations have legalized sports betting. Besides, Britain has never banned sports gambling since its initial legalization (Hobson, 2015).
References
Hobson, W. (2015). Sports gambling in U.S.: Too prevalent to remain illegal? Retrieved 23 February 2020, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/sports-gambling-in-us-too-prevalent-to-remain-illegal/2015/02/27/f1088e4c-b7d3-11e4-9423-f3d0a1ec335c_story.htmlPhilips, A. (2015). Are daily fantasy sports even legal? Retrieved 23 February 2020, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/09/21/are-daily-fantasy-sports-even-legal/
Ethical Rights of Gun Control
Ethical Rights of Gun Control
Name
Institution
Date
Introduction
The debate regarding ownership of a gun by private citizen has raised a hot debate between the government and the civil right groups. The government agencies are uncomfortable with the idea of private gun ownership. However, the proponents argue that gun ownership is a civil right and citizens should not be denied the right to own a gun for self-defense.
Moral Duty behind Gun Ownership
There is a moral right for private citizens to own guns. Gun ownership should be more than the civil rights since it is one of the most basic human rights. Every person should have the fundamental right of self-defense. The government should encourage the law- abiding citizens to own guns so that they can protect themselves, their families and the entire community from the crude people who may harm them without regard to human life. The reasons for gun ownership can be attributed to the fact that law enforcement agencies do a reactive work, not proactive duty; the agencies spent most of their time attempting to apprehend criminals after committing the offense (MacKinnon, 2013). The agencies lack the ability to be on hand or in time to prevent mass causality shootings hence prevention could have been better than cure, and this can be done if the citizens are allowed to own guns.
It should be noted that, no state agency in the entire globe has the right to force an individual to give up the capacity and the ability to physically protect themselves if attack by a criminal person, and that makes self defense part of every constitution in the world (Lott, 2010). Many people argue that the blood of every innocent victim of mass-casualty shooting is on the hands of the agency that advocates for a gun-free zone hence owning a gun should be a moral duty for every individual that has the ability to buy a firearm.
It is the moral duty of every individual to do no harm to other citizens, except during self-defense mechanism, and that can be further suggested that it is amoral duty of an individual not to risk his or her life in protecting another, but it would be prudent if the individual is prepared to act in self-defense of the innocent. The government armies are charged with the responsibility of protecting the country from external aggressions and the armies are not designed to protect individual citizens from human predators within the society. Hence, owning a gun will prove useful for the citizens in protecting themselves and their community from criminals (MacKinnon, 2013).
Constitutional Interpretation by the Supreme Courts
The role of the supreme courts should be limited to the interpretation of the law and not making such laws. In a functional democracy, where parliament has the mandate and independence of legislating on fundamental public policies, strict policies are required to facilitate “checks and balances” within the country. The noble reasons why supreme courts should only limit themselves to constitution interpretation are the conflict of interest that may arise between the parliament and the judiciary. The noble rule of nature is that a man cannot make his laws and interpret by himself since he may lack partiality in his work, therefore, making of the law should be done separately with the interpretation of the same laws (Lott, 2010).
Another reason why the Supreme Courts should limit themselves to law interpretations is that, many of the supreme judges and the entire judiciary have increasingly become parked with wimps and are rather being subject to the executive. The robust and outspoken judiciary members are always being lured by the politicians while others are being threaten. This might compromise their work if they were to make and interpret the laws. In the modern times characterized by lack of respect for court rulings, the supreme courts, through their wisdom, can make rulings based on their interpretation of the constitutions that limit gun control (MacKinnon, 2013).
Finally, the making of the law should be left for the parliament and government since these bodies are held accountable by the people directly unlike the judges in the supreme courts that are mainly held responsible by the judiciary. The legitimate process of lawmaking should be inclusive characterized by public participation, and this can only be achieved when laws are made in the parliament (MacKinnon, 2013). Legislation by parliament is preceded by public participation hence making the law making process more inclusive and exhaustive as the public is given opportunities to air their views.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the hard and ultimate truth is that no individual or government entity has the right to prevent a law abiding citizen from owning anything including a gun. Since control is life-saving and morality supported, owning a gun should not be debated but left as a civil right and, duty for the citizens to protect themselves and their society from crude criminals.
References
Lott, J. R. (2010). More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
MacKinnon, B. (2013). Ethics: Theory and contemporary issues, Concise Edition (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
History of Social Media and the Social Media Revolution
History of Social Media and the Social Media Revolution
Name
Institutional Affiliation
Social media did not just begin in the current century and therefore it is not something new. Although Social Media sites such as Facebook and Twitter are seen as new trends, the roots of Social Media stretch far deeper than expected. Social media has been used for over thirty years and is presently part of the mainstream culture and the business world (Van, 2013). Currently, individuals use digital media to network, socialize, and gather information and some of the well-known sites include Facebook, LinkedIn, MySpace, Twitter, Blogger, YouTube, and Lulu.
Social media began in 1969 with CompuServe, which was the first major commercial internet service provider in the US, and it used a technology known as dial up. It dominated between 1980s and 1990s but in 1971, the first email was delivered. There were lots of improvements in the social media sites by 1970s and in 1979, UseNet enabled users to communicate through a virtual newsletter while in 1980s home computers became common thus sophisticating the social media (Van, 2013). Between 1988 and 1990, there were internet relay chats that became more popular.
In 1997, the Web had one million sites, blogging began, and SixDegrees.com that allowed users to create profiles and list friends. AOL Instant Messenger enabled users chat and in 1998, Google opened a major internet search engine and index. 1999 saw Friends Reunited, which is believed to be the first initial social network that got prominence and in 2000, the dot.com bubble burst opening way to future online. Over seventy million computers were connected to the internet as the millennium turned. Between 2001 and 2004, Wikipedia, Friendster, MySpace, Lindedln, Apple’s online music service iTunes, Podcasting, Flickr image, and Digg were founded. Between 2005 and 2013, there have been several other Social Media sites such as Twitter, Dropbox and WordPress were. The Social media has had a great influence in different fields such as the business world and many people are connecting to the internet.
Social Media has rapidly changed the way people communicate enabling revolution in user generated content, global community and publishing of consumer opinion accompanied with growth of access points (Van, 2013). Social Media has greatly accelerated the rate at which relationships develop and information sharing and people currently use it as a tool to shape the world’s events and culture. Power of the social media has led to what is conventionally known as the social media revolution that has seen almost everything happening faster than ever before.
Additionally, Social Media is currently used as a transformative tool and a site where everyone can air an opinion that eventually reaches to almost everyone within a short time. Various businesses are using social media to market their products and reach their clients leaving behind the traditional advertising avenues (Qualman, 2011). There has been a great shift in consumer driven multimedia platforms that have interestingly changed people’s relationship to content and information. Social media has made individuals to focus on their personal topics thus making the content to be consumer driven and making the information to be dominated by user content and opinion. Apparently, information posted on a social media exposes the users to a huge volume of consumer influence hence persuading the society’s opinion offline.
Social Media revolution was used in Egypt to overthrow former Egyptian president, Hussein Mubarak. Egyptian youths had demonstrated the usefulness of social media as a platform for organizing mass street actions after distributing news that the state controlled press avoided the harsh tactics of Mubarak’s security personnel (Qualman, 2011). They succeeded in several cases including the one for a 28-year-old Khaled Mohamed Said killed after thorough beatings by the police and the photos of his disfigured corpse online on Facebook. These events were very successful in initiating the Egyptian uprising, which brought a remarkable transformation in the region’s political dynamics and ended 30 years of martial law ended and a democratic free election was held after decades.
References
Qualman, E. (2011). Socialnomics: How social media transforms the way we live and do business. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley.Van, D. J. (2013). The culture of connectivity: A critical history of social media. Oxford, UK [etc.: Oxford University Press.