attached

City of Boulder View -- ISSUE

The issue from the City of Boulder's point-of-view, and the one that would be presented to a Court, deals with the legality of legislating particular actions on city property. The City of Boulder would maintain that it has the legal right to legislate activities in the park, not only for safety reasons, but to maintain order and fairness. For instance, there is already an ordinance in place that closes the park at night, likely to protect the citizenry since the park is dark and cannot be policed properly at night. Similarly, there is already a park rule prohibiting placement of private signs in the parks. These rules were already put in place and are based upon the notion that a City Park is designed for the needs of all the citizens, should be free of commercialization, danger, and overt issues that would hamper the enjoyment of the park by children and their families. The challenges to the City -- freedom of religion and speech, do not fit within the prevue of the challenges to the curfew or regulation because the legislation was already in place, irrespective of the outside group. Additionally, legislation was designed specifically to protect, in a utilitarian manner, the greater number of citizens who pay a portion of their taxes to build and maintain a park. However, the City of Boulder passing a resolution prohibiting persons criticizing city officials on t-shirts is quite another matter, and may indeed infringe on free speech rights. Unless the images are patently offensive, the City may not have legal grounds to prevent anyone from wearing any message, especially in relation to Perry Education v Perry Local Educators and other legal challenges (Freedom of Speech, 2011).

Question 2 -- Social Responsibilities of Harner Company-

As the global economy becomes more of a reality, and as various developing countries increase the amount of business they do with developed countries, many cultural issues arise. Doing business is not the same worldwide, and as citizens of a global village, we must realize that there are different cultural norms and behaviors that are acceptable in some countries, unacceptable in others, and even expected in some. International companies are being pressurized by different groups of people, mainly from their stakeholders, regarding social and ethical issues. Using utilitarianism as our guide, an action is ethical if it maximizes net social benefits. Net social benefits is defined as social benefits minus social costs. While stakeholders are, of course, cognizant of profits, they are also concerned with social responsibility to the community in which the organization is located. Building a better community and serving the public good allows a utilitarian mode of social responsibility to maintain Harner in its current location (domestic) and perhaps even profit from that with an appropriate marketing campaign (Carroll, 2000).

Question 3 -- Rule and Analysis on Issue of Responsibility-

Background: Mark loaned his car to Brian, knowing that Brian had several accidents and a revoked driver's license. Brian injured Tim in New Hampshire. Tim sued Mark in New Hampshire Court for injuries, alleging Mark was negligent when loaning car to Brian.

Rule: New Hampshire has a rule of law that states that if a rot is committed within the State's boundaries, New Hampshire law and courts have jurisdiction over that issue. Negligence is defined as a person being held legally liable for damages caused through careless (or negligent behavior). Since Mark knew of Brian's previous record, he had past knowledge of Brian's habits. That is a value judgment. However, Mark knew also that Brian had no legal license to drive, and yet allowed him to borrow his car, thus becoming culpable to anything Brian might do while driving.