# data[].attributes.body
10 famous cases of doping

# data[].attributes.body
Isaac mak

Mr Luke why are you pretending to be Josie?

# data[].attributes.body
Hi! This month topic is about should drink drivers banned for their life?

My team think that drink drivers should not banned for their life.
I have found an article which supports my team.

This article is about a drunk driver may not have the full fault.In some instances, a non-drunk driver may share part of the blame if they too are doing something reckless or negligent.

I think that beside the driver,  the second driver or other drivers may have the fault.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Every year, thousands of car accidents involve drunk drivers, and many people believe that a drunk driver is always at fault in an accident. Unfortunately, this is not always true. If you recently experienced a car accident with a drunk driver, it's important to fully understand the facts of your accident, especially if you suffered an injury.

An injury claim after a drunk driving accident is very common, and, in many cases, the drunk driver's insurer is fully on the hook to compensate victims. However, in some cases, the drunk driver may not carry all the liability, which can affect the compensation for a personal injury claim.
DUI charges don't always mean fault in an accident
In almost all drunk driving accidents, the drunk driver's impairment plays a significant role in causing the wreck. However, in some instances, a non-drunk driver may share part of the blame if they too are doing something reckless or negligent behind the wheel. Under the guidelines of contributory fault, a non-drunk driver may share some of the fault for the crash.

In general, the law separates the drunk driver's illegal act of driving while intoxicated from their involvement in the accident. The drunk driver may still receive DUI charges, but not face full liability for causing the accident. Instead, their negligence will be calculated as a percentage of fault, which is usually greater than a non-drunk driver's percentage of fault.

For instance, if you drive through a stop sign and get hit by a drunk driver, you may bear some liability for the accident, depending on other factors of the accident. If another non-drunk driver would also have struck your vehicle in the same situation, then you may share at least partial liability in the accident.
Liability is complicated
Even if you think you may share some liability in a drunk driving accident, you should know that comparative negligence in Kentucky does not bar you from seeking compensation for injuries after a crash. Instead, your damages are reduced by your percentage of fault.

Determining liability in a crash can be complicated, but so can calculating compensation, which is why you may want to consult with a legal professional after a drunk driving accident. No two accidents are exactly alike, so you may have a stronger claim than you think. Proper legal counsel can help you understand the finer points of the law and fight to protect your rights.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Are drunk drivers always at fault in an accident? | Gary C. Johnson, P.S.C.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Every year, thousands of car accidents involve drunk drivers, and many people believe that a drunk driver is always at fault in an accident. Unfortunately, this is not always true. If you recently experienced a car accident with a drunk driver, it's important to fully understand the facts of your accident, especially if you suffered an injury.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi! This month topic is"Is social media bad for your heath?" My team believe that social media is bad for your heath.
I found an article about social media is bad for your heath. I think that it will be beneficial,changing and evolving to teens

# data[].attributes.body
Hello, I have found n article which support my stand.
The article is about social media can release stress,it offers you a safe space to talk and express what they want to say

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Earlier this week the media reported new stats that showed the number of women seeking help for self-harm has doubled in the last twenty years - sparking a debate on the impact of social media on our mental health. We asked Natalya, one of our young champions, to tell us her view and to share her tips for staying well online.
For most people, self-harm is a secretive activity - often as a result of being unable express your emotions in a healthy way, or to feel in control of something when you feel helpless. Often, family and friends will be unaware that this is happening, and It is easy for those feelings of isolation and loneliness to increase and add to that vicious cycle.

Social media can offer a safe space to talk and express that pent up frustration. While I do not dispute that social media can have an incredibly negative impact on people, and that issues of how society and the media tells girls they should look is still a massive issue, we often neglect to highlight how important social media can be for those who are otherwise isolated or unable to talk to anyone. It can be potentially life-saving.

We know that the ability to be anonymous can be a huge problem with social media, giving people the capability to insult and abuse with complete freedom. But that anonymity can also provide a safe haven for people who would otherwise be too scared to talk about what they're going through.

When I first started self-harming at sixteen, I had a Tumblr blog and I would use it to vent and journal my feelings. I would also use it to connect and find advice from people who were going through or had gone through the same thing as me. It made me feel less alone. Obviously, there were dangers with that - a platform that allows people to express themselves fully also means that people can express unhealthy ways of thinking and patterns of behavior that could be triggering, and you do have to be wary of that.

"I believe that teenagers are far more switched on to the issues with excessive social media usage than we give them credit for - they have grown up in the age of social media after all."

We must consider the fact that social media is rarely the cause of mental illness - rather it is the societal pressures of school / money / parents / friendships / job prospects that can negatively affect young people. Yes, these things are also present on social media, but social media is only a reflection of society. We can't say that social media is the problem, without also acknowledging that society as a whole is a problem. Social media just amplifies that.

As ever, nothing is black and white, and rarely are things ever only good or bad. Talk to your children, your peers or your parents about social media, discuss potential issues but also discuss the things you find helpful about it. Discuss how to keep yourself safe and how to keep yourself healthy. It's okay if you slip up or struggle, but talking, whether in person or online, will help, I know that from my own experiences.
My tips for using social media in a healthy manner:

If you feel that it is negatively affecting your life, talk to someone about it - a friend, a therapist, a parent. Turn off when you can and mute your notifications - don't let social media overwhelm you.

Enforce your boundaries - mute topics which you find distressing, unfollow people who make you feel bad about yourself, don't feel like you have to answer messages or play snapchats immediately. Give yourself a break if you need to. If people make you feel bad about that, they are not worth your time.

You don't have to read every bit of news. You don't need to be up to date with exactly what's going on the world. Try not to endlessly scroll through hundreds and hundreds of updates!

Finally, remember that social media is a skewed view of life, people like to upload the perfect photos and updates about their lives - censoring out the bad bits. Most people's lives are not that perfect so don't compare yourself.

Natalya is a Rethink Mental Illness Young Champion, follow her on Twitter via @If you would like more information about self-harm? Please visit our advice and information pages or download our free factsheet.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Social media bad for mental health? Not in my view!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Earlier this week the media reported new stats that showed the number of girls seeking help for self-harm has doubled in the last ten years. Predictably, the media lay the blame for this increase on social media! We asked Natalya, one of our young champions, her views on social media and what her tips are for staying safe online.

# data[].attributes.body
Hello,l found an article which supports my team
My team tbelieves tha children should watch TV more than 1 hour per day
I think that if children watch TV more than 1 hour per day will provides valuable family time and  educational exposures

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Advantages of Children Watching TV | Livestrong.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Children under two should not watch television at all, according to recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics, and older children should have very limited hours of watching TV. In the real world, parents often rely on television as kind of a de-facto babysitter.

# data[].attributes.body
Good evening, l have just found something to support my team

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Does watching more than one hour of TV affect you in any way? Yes, it does. Watching too much TV is bad for your brain, and can make you confuse the real world with a fantasy world. It can keep you from going outside and actually doing something. Too much TV can affect you in many bad ways.
What can watching too much TV do to you? Two thirds of infants watch TV for over 2 hours a day. Kids 8-18 years old spend 4 hours in front of a computer or TV screen. This can be very harmful because it can distract them from homework, the outside world, or even spending time with their family! TV can also be educational because some TV shows help kids learn about thing like the alphabet, and other interesting things. It is also good because there is a news channel that tells you what is going on around the world, and students can learn about animals on shows about nature. TV is good and bad.
http://kidshealth.org...
How does watching TV affect your mind? Watching too much TV has affected many kids minds. For example, if a kid watches a violent or scary video they might feel as if they are in danger or something bad is going to happen to them. Also some kids might see kids acting cool on a TV show, and feel influenced by them. They can start to smoke or dress differently. Kids can be wrongly influenced by many TV shows and movies.
http://kidshealth.org...
How much do commercials affect kids? Kids in The United States see over 40,000 commercials in a year.( http://kidshealth.org...#) These commercials can encourage kids to buy games, electronics, apps, etc. The commercials give false information that the kids believe. These gizmos and gadgets look ideal to them. How can you stop this? You can"t stop kids from seeing commercials no matter what you do, but you can make them watch more public TV shows. They should watch educational TV.

I'll make some very short arguments.

Firstly, my opponent concedes children SHOULD watch more than an hour of TV, except educational TV. I agree with this point, but this does not change the fact that it supports my case.

Secondly, my opponent is missing a major premise: just because it causes some harms, it doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. The right for an individual to do as they wish, when an action only effects themself, is enshrined in law. The right to pursue happiness is inalienable.

In short, we have very good reason to believe that children should be allowed to watch more TV. And children should watch more TV, as a personal decision, if it is educational.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should kids watch more than one hour of tv?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Does watching more than one hour of TV affect you in any way? Yes, it does. Watching too much TV is bad for your brain, and can make you confuse the real world with a fantasy world. It can keep you from going outside and actually doing something.

# data[].attributes.body
hi, I found something to support my group which children should not watch TV one hour a day

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Most kids are plugged into devices like TVs, game consoles, tablets, and smartphones well before they can even ride a bike.

Technology is part of life. And parents can make technology a healthy part of childhood by teaching smart media use. Preschoolers can get help learning the alphabet on public television, gradeschoolers can play educational apps and games, and teens can do research online.

But media use can also have some downsides:

The Obesity Link

Kids who spend too much time using media are more likely to be overweight. Health experts have long linked too much screen time to excess weight. When they're staring at screens, kids are inactive and tend to snack. They're also see lots of ads that encourage them to eat unhealthy foods like potato chips and drink empty-calorie soft drinks that often become favorite snack foods.

Studies show that decreasing the amount of TV kids watched led to less weight gain and lower body mass index (BMI). Replacing video game time with outdoor game time is another good way to help kids maintain a healthy weight.

Watching Risky Behaviors

Characters on TV and in video games often show risky behaviors - like drinking alcohol, using drugs, and smoking cigarettes - as cool, fun, and exciting. When these things seem acceptable, kids and teens might be tempted to try them. That might lead to substance abuse problems. Media can also expose kids to high-risk sexual practices, and studies show that teens who watch lots of sexual content are more likely to start sexual activity at a young age.

Seeing Violence

The average American child will see 200,000 violent acts on TV by age 18. Many of these are done by the "good guys," whom kids are taught to admire. In fact, often the hero wins by fighting with or killing the "bad guys." This can confuse kids as they try to understand the difference between right and wrong.

Kids who view violence onscreen are more likely to show aggressive behavior, and to fear that the world is scary and that something bad will happen to them.

Young kids are easily frightened by violent images. Because they don't yet understand what is real and what is make believe, simply telling them that violence isn't real won't help. Behavior problems, nightmares, and trouble sleeping may happen after kids watch violence on screen.

Older kids can be scared by violent images too. Talking with kids this age will help them, so it's important to comfort them and explain what they see to help ease fears. But it's even better to not let your kids view shows or play games that could scare them.

Sleep, Mental Health, and Other Problems

Kids who use media in their bedrooms often don't get enough sleep at night. Media use also can expose kids to cyberbullying, which has been linked to depression and suicide.

And media use can distract kids from important tasks, interfere with homework time, and hurt school performance. It can limit quality family time and make kids feel lonely or isolated.

Too Many Commercials

Young kids don't understand that commercials are for selling a product, and sometimes can't tell the difference between the show and the ad. Even older kids may need to be reminded of the purpose of advertising. Video games are especially full of pop-up ads with pressure to buy.

Explain that ads are designed to make people want things they probably don't need and believe the products will somehow make them happier. Teach kids to be smart consumers. Ask them questions like: "What do you like about that?" or "Do you think it's really as good as it looks in that ad?"

Try to limit kids' exposure to ads. You can:

Have them watch public TV stations, which rarely show ads featuring products.

Record shows so you can fast forward through the commercials.

Mute the TV during ads to ask your child questions about the show.

Stream their favorite programs, or buy or rent DVDs.

What Else Should I Know?

Parents can and should keep tabs on their kids' media use:

Set limits to ensure that kids don't spend too much time in front of a screen.

Monitor how and what kids see on their screens, and encourage positive, meaningful, and educational media use.

These online resources also can help:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Technology can be part of a healthy childhood, but it's important for parents to track their kids' screen time and set limits.

# data[].attributes.body
hello, l have found an article which support my stand which l think that children should not watch television more than 1 hour per day
I think that watch too much TV will lose sleep and mess up children's mind.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The primary disadvantage would be that you have only one life, and you really should live it. Spending x hours a day watching TV reduces the time you have to do other stuff. It's a shame to realize that your best years were wasted on commercial breaks and useless soaps and romantic comedies.

Following this, then depending on how much is "too much" you could lose sleep and mess up your mind.

Depending, again, on what you watch it is likely bad for your health. You will be more still watching most TV programs than sleeping.

You could probably grow socially numb - if your only friends are Friends, then they never address you, never mind you.

If you only watch news channels, odds are that you'll grow cynical and depressed. It seems that most news worth reporting are disasters of one kind or another.

Here's What Happens To Your Heart Rate When You Watch 'Game Of Thrones'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What are some of the disadvantages of watching too much television?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Answer: The primary disadvantage would be that you have only one life, and you really should live it. Spending x hours a day watching TV reduces the time you have to do other stuff. It's a shame to realize that your best years were wasted on commercial breaks and useless soaps and romantic comedi...

# data[].attributes.body
Isaac Mak
Hi! Another article to support our team—hope you like it

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
With more and more ways of viewing TV available we now have access to a plethora of both good quality and inappropriate TV content. In this crowded television environment, the key is to provide young children with a guided viewing experience and to model and teach them the critical thinking skills they need to be active, engaged viewers.

Television offers lots of benefits to kids:

Because of its ability to create powerful touchstones, TV enables young people to share cultural experiences with others.

TV can act as a catalyst to get kids reading-following up on TV programs by getting books on the same subjects or reading authors whose work was adapted for the programs.

Television can teach kids important values and life lessons.

Educational programming can develop young children's socialization and learning skills.

News, current events and historical programming can help make young people more aware of other cultures and people.

Documentaries can help develop critical thinking about society and the world.

TV can help introduce youth to classic Hollywood films and foreign movies that they might not otherwise see.

Cultural programming can open up the world of music and art for young people.

How to choose good TV

How can we select viewing that is good for children? One approach is to ask the following questions:

Does the program encourage children to ask questions, to use their imaginations, or to be active or creative?
Television watching doesn't have to be passive. It can prompt questions, kindle curiosity, or teach activities to pursue when the set is off.

How does this program represent gender and diversity?
Young children believe that television reflects the real world. To not see people like themselves-in race, ethnicity, or physical ability, for example-may diminish their self-worth, and not seeing peopledifferent from themselves may lead to a distorted view of the world as well. Beyond the simple presence or absence of diversity, it's important to look at how different people are portrayed.

How commercialized is this program?
Some children's programs are designed to act as extended commercials for related merchandise. While this is often true from the outset, in other cases the merchandising may not appear until the show is successful - which can lead to a situation where the "tail wags the dog" as the marketing becomes more important than the program itself, and hurt the quality of the show.

What are the common themes and topics in this program?
Watch a few episodes of the program to see the common themes and storylines. What characteristics are shown in a positive or negative light? Which behaviours and activities are rewarded, and which are punished? What does the show suggest is important, valued or desirable?

What emotional effect will this program have on children?
Consider that children will often have different emotional reactions than adults. Things which we consider to be normal elements of drama, such as conflict between characters or putting characters in jeopardy, can be distressing for very small children. Also, all children are different: don't assume that a child will be able to handle content because you watched it at their age or because siblings or classmates have watched it without incident. See the sectionSpecial Issues for Young Children for more details.

The good news is that Canadian children's television, in particular, is frequently a source of good messages. A 2009 study of Canadian TV aimed at youth found that among shows aimed at preschoolers, nearly half focused on social relationships, while a third focused on learning, with none focusing on fighting or violence. These themes did appear in Canadian programs aimed at kids ages 6-12, but represented only one in 10 shows: social relationships, adventure and learning were all found much more often. Canadian children's TV was also found to have a high level of ethnic diversity, with visible minorities represented at a level close to their actual numbers in Canada. Unfortunately, the same study found that fewer children's programs are being made in Canada, falling from half of all kids' programming broadcast in Canada in the 1990s to roughly a third in 2009. [1]

[1] Caron, Andre et al. A National Study on Children's Television Programming in Canada. Centre for Youth and Media Studies, Universite de Montreal, 2009.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With more and more ways of viewing TV available we now have access to a plethora of both good quality and inappropriate TV content. In this crowded television environment, the key is to provide young children with a guided viewing experience and to model and teach them the critical thinking skills they need to be active, engaged viewers.

# data[].attributes.body
I have now got a new point that supports our team. This article is about the good things of watching tv.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The benefits of technology and media are numerous for children as they make learning fun and an engaging experience for them. However, to maintain a healthy balance, it is crucial for parents to think about both the good and bad effects of television on children. While television sets are an inseparable part of our lives, parents may want to know how much TV time children should be allowed and what kind of TV shows are appropriate for their children's age group.

Read this post to learn more about the positive and negative effects of television on children and the role of parents in helping children get the best out of their TV time.

Positive Effects Of Television On Kids

The television is not bad. When exposed to the right shows or programs, your child can learn useful things. Research indicates that watching TV can have a positive impact on children. It can help them change their behavior and attitude for good (1). Here are some more ways in which TV can have a positive influence on kids.

1. Educational content

A few television channels are dedicated to creating educational and informative content for the audience, especially children. Sesame Street, for example, is one such program which is aimed at preschoolers.

There are a few channels that broadcast only educational content covering subjects like art and craft, science, history, geography, and math. The TV is also a great medium that exposes children to different languages around the world.

Allowing your children to watch news channels, with a little guidance, will help them stay updated with the current affairs and names of significant people in the world.

2. Entertainment

The sounds and colorful images on the screen appeal to children and also retain their attention. From movies to cartoon shows, there are several programs to keep children engaged.

However, make sure that the content is appropriate for your kids based on their age and level of understanding.

3. Sports

Encourage your kids to watch different sports like tennis, soccer, baseball, and basketball, by co-viewing with them. Tell them about the gameplay, rules and other interesting facts about the sport. If they show interest in any, encourage them to play the game or sport.

4. Exposure to different cultures

The TV can help your child to learn about different countries and teach them about various cultures in the world. With the right choice of programs, your child might learn about various people around the world, their traditions, lifestyles, and cultures.

5. Television might inspire

TV shows aimed at young children and adolescents are not only educational but also inspiring. Educational TV programs encourage children to try new things. For example, a TV show about creative fun can inspire a child to try something new with clay, paints, or paper. Likewise, a documentary about famous scientists, artists, and other public figures can also inspire them to do good deeds or achieve something big in life.

6. 3D TV and programs

3D technology has changed the way we experience television. 3D television programs and movies offer an enhanced experience for kids. Although the popularity of 3D TV has been on the decline in the recent past, there are still a few networks offering educational programs in 3D.

The American Optometric XA specialized healthcare profession which involves examination of the eyes and related structures Association has confirmed that 3D can be viewed by most children (2). If your child has trouble, consult a medical professional.

Your kids can reap all these benefits from watching TV or the internet only when you guide them to watch the right shows for a limited time.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends limiting screen time and the types of media that children aged six and older watch. For children between the ages of two and five years, screen time should be limited to one hour per day and must only include high-quality programs (3).

Digital media can quietly take over your children's lives if you are not cautious. The "just one more hour" could extend if not corrected at the nascent stage X Early stage of development or recently coming into existence .

[ Read: Teen Social Media Addiction ]

Negative Effects Of Television On Children

TV affects children negatively as well. Unfortunately, the adverse effects seem to outnumber the positive ones when you do not pay attention to. Here are a few ways in which TV can be a bad influence on your children.

7. Curbs physical activity

Addiction to TV shows reduces the amount of physical activity in children. Sometimes, they refuse to do anything else but watch TV all day.

Lack of proper physical activity and too much screen time can lead to vision problems.

Research has also indicated that there is a direct connection between TV time and obesity in kids (4).

8. Impacts social development

Kids who watch a lot of TV do not have time to play or socialize.

Less or no interaction with peers can affect their social development. TV eats away the time they get to interact with other children in their social circle, which may affect their knowledge and understanding of social interactions and behavior.

9. Affects brain development and behavior

Pediatrician and neonatologist Dr. Neema Shrestha says, "Excessive use of TV/media (>2 hours/day) to watch poor-quality content has been found to lower cognitive development in children. It has been shown to cause language delays, poor reading and math skills, and short-term memory in children between two to five years."

Researchers found that prolonged TV viewing might lower cognitive abilities XAlso known as general intelligence, cognitive abilities or skills are needed to carry out a task related to short-term memory, early reading, math skills, and language development (5).

Another study by The John Hopkins University states that toddlers who watch television for more than two hours a day can have behavioral problems (6).

TV shows may be educational, but excessive watching could affect your child's brain development, according to studies. The first couple of years in your child's life are very important for brain development.

Even educational shows like Sesame Street and Dora the Explorer are recommended for children not until pre-school age.

Early exposure to inappropriate content that has sex, alcohol, and drugs, could bring up questions in children, the answers to which may be too complicated for them to understand. The worst part is that early exposure can even give them a distorted view of these elements.

The violence portrayed in a "positive" light in superhero movies and the like gives them an idea that it is "okay" to be violent. So, kids watching TV shows based on superheroes may start believing that violence is not bad.

It may even encourage violent and aggressive behavior in some kids, which can be detrimental to their social development (7). In some children, this behavior may surface immediately, while in some, it could come up during the later years.

10. Exposure to vices

Movies and other television shows may exaggerate reality and create extremely violent scenes online, which may be terrifying for kids.

The amount of violence and guns used on TV may give them the impression that the world is an unsafe place for them.

At the same time, animated and cartoon shows, which underplay the effects of violence, may desensitize kids to real-world events.

Commercials encourage kids to consume unhealthy foods and drinks.

Children begin to believe that fast food, ice creams, and carbonated drinks are good.

Parents become the victims of consumerism as kids insist on buying something that they saw on TV. They are forced to spend money on things that their children want but do not need.

You may also not always be able to control what your kid watches on the TV.

"Television programs showing fast-paced or violent content can negatively impact a child's behavior. Sometimes, children's programs may also contain content that may not be appropriate for their age," observes Dr. Shrestha.

11. Gives a distorted view of the world

The content of the show must be appropriate for your child's age.

Pick shows with shorter duration. The longer they watch, the more the chances of them getting addicted.

Check the tone and pace of the show as you would not want your kids to watch an energetic show before going to bed.

No television during mealtime: Do not allow your kids to watch TV while they are eating. Ensure that you have dinner together, if possible, at the dinner table with no TV in the background.

Remove TV from the bedroom: TV in bedrooms is a bad idea, especially for kids as prolonged exposure to screens can affect their sleeping habits.

TV is not a babysitter: It is common for parents to use the television as a babysitter when they want to do something without being disturbed by their kids. When you are busy, you may not be able to monitor what the kids are watching, and that can expose them to inappropriate content.

Television in the background: It is common to leave the TV turned on in the background when you are busy in the kitchen, doing the laundry or working from home. That will only draw the child's attention to it. Do not switch on the TV unless you want to watch something.

Set TV time rules for school days: Chalk out specific TV time for kids for weekdays and weekends and stick to them. That will prevent them from watching too much TV on any given day.

Do not let them watch ads. Kids are naïve and commercials can be manipulative as their primary goal is to sell products by convincing their impressionable audience.

Organize play dates with your neighbor's kids.

Encourage them to participate in games and sports at school.

Reward them if they voluntarily ditch the TV to play outdoors.

Encourage them to watch educational programs by watching them yourselves.

Television might lead to the "mean world syndrome XA phenomenon in which people may perceive the world to be more harmful due to long-term exposure to violence " in kids and teenagers (8).

12. Consumerism

Another bane of television is consumerism X A consumer behavior characterized by a desire for materialistic things and a better lifestyle. . The number of ads that a child sees on TV exposes them to a variety of brands and products that they may not need.

What Can Parents Do?

Parents have to take a stand when it comes to television. If you want to protect your children from the damaging effects of television, here is what you can do.
Was this article helpful?
1. Choose The Right TV Shows

The first step is to figure out what shows are appropriate for children. You will have to do some research to understand the content and the message that the show sends out to the audience. Do not pick a show just because it is for children. Keep in mind the following factors before you decide what to watch for kids:

2. Limit TV Time For Kids

The number of hours children spend watching digital media are increasing at an alarming rate. While you may not be able to control how much TV your kids watch outside, you can surely limit it at home. Here's how.

3. Make It A Family Activity

Try to make watching TV a fun family activity, instead of a means to pass the time. That will discourage your children from watching it when they are bored or alone at home.

4. Encourage Physical Activity

One more thing you could do is encourage your children to go out and play. This might help in shifting their attention away from the digital media. If your kids are resisting, then try these:

Role Of Television In Your Kid's Life

Let's face the fact that television is not going anywhere anytime soon. So, not buying a TV to keep your child 'safe' does not guarantee that they will not be exposed to it. They can watch TV at school, at a friend's house, or at any other place.

But this does not mean you cannot control the influence of television on your children. As a parent, you can decide how much TV your kid sees. If your kids are old enough to understand, then explain to them why you are limiting the screen time and how it can affect them; this might reduce the resistance.

3. What is media violence?

Television is a vital part of our lives nowadays. However, when children start to indulge in watching too much TV, most parents wonder about television's good and bad effects on them. While TV is a source of entertainment and a great way to engage in informative and educational content, sometimes it could also negatively impact a child's well-being. Hence, it is important for you as a parent to set a few rules, such as establishing a fixed screen time, choosing the right kind of shows for children, and encouraging physical activity. Remember that television can do good for your child when using it with caution and appropriate parental supervision.

Key Takeaways

References:

MomJunction's articles are written after analyzing the research works of expert authors and institutions. Our references consist of resources established by authorities in their respective fields. You can learn more about the authenticity of the information we present in our editorial policy.

The following two tabs change content below.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
12 Good And Bad Effects Of Television On Children

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The benefits of technology and media are numerous for children as they make learning fun and an engaging experience for them. However, to maintain a healthy balance, it is crucial for parents to think about both the good and bad effects of television on children.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi guys! I believe that we are facing more stress over time. This news article shows that we face more stress than the students in the past. The article will explain more about my personal opinion.

# data[].attributes.headline
A new study has found that watching television for more than three hours each day is associated with poorer language skills in 11-year-old children. 

# data[].attributes.subject
A new study has found that watching television for more than three hours each day is associated with poorer language skills in 11-year-old children. 

# data[].attributes.body
Isaac Mak
Hi guys! I agree with the new topic. Here is an article that supports my personal opinion.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Stress levels of Hong Kong DSE takers reach three-year high

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Your source for credible news and authoritative insights from Hong Kong, China and the world.

# data[].attributes.body
Hello everyone!

Today we'll be discussing the following topic:

"Should children only watch TV for one hour a day?"

I've prepared some worksheets and materials for us. See you all at 17:30!

# data[].attributes.body
Hi guys! I have just found an article that supports our team.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
GovHK 香港政府一站通：社交網絡安全須知

# data[].attributes.body
Hi,I'm your new classmate,Gordon Peng

# data[].attributes.body
Good afternoon,I have just found an article which supports my team

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What should I do when other people post pictures of my child online without asking me first?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What should I do when other people post pictures of my child online without asking me first? Get expert advice and tips from Common Sense Media editors.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi everyone!This is an article that supports my team.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In most states, you can be sued for using someone else's name, likeness, or other personal attributes without permission for an exploitative purpose. Usually, people run into trouble in this area when they use someone's name or photograph in a commercial setting, such as in advertising or other promotional activities. But, some states also prohibit use of another person's identity for the user's own personal benefit, whether or not the purpose is strictly commercial. There are two distinct legal claims that potentially apply to these kinds of unauthorized uses: (1) invasion of privacy through misappropriation of name or likeness ("misappropriation"); and (2) violation of the right of publicity. (The "right of publicity" is the right of a person to control and make money from the commercial use of his or her identity.) Because of the similarities between misappropriation and right of publicity claims, courts and legal commentators often confuse them. We will not try to exhaustively explain the differences between these two legal claims here. It is mostly important for you to understand the legal principles that are common to both claims; we will point out relevant differences below and on the state pages when appropriate.

You might be familiar with the now-famous case of Alison Chang, which is a good example of a potentially unlawful use of someone's name or likeness. In September 2007, Chang's parents filed a lawsuit in state court in Texas against Virgin Mobile Australia and Creative Commons. Virgin Mobile Australia obtained a photograph of Chang from Flickr, where is was posted with a CC "Attribution" license, which gave Virgin Mobile permission from a copyright perspective to use the photograph in a commercial setting so long as it gave attribution to the photographer who took the photo. (For information on copyright licensing, see Copyright Licenses and Transfers.) Virgin Mobile used the photograph in an advertising campaign to promote its free text messaging and other mobile services without getting permission from Chang or her parents to use her name or likeness. Chang's parents sued Virgin Mobile for misappropriation of her likeness, and the facts would also have supported a claim for violation of her right of publicity. They brought other claims against Creative Commons, which they dismissed shortly after filing the lawsuit. The case, which was subsequently dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction over Virgin Mobile, is interesting because it highlights the fact that somebody seeking to use a photograph needs to worry not just about copyright law, but also misappropriation and rights of publicity.

The Chang case involved a clearly commercial use of her likeness. As a general matter, you should never use someone's name or photograph in advertising or promotion of your website or blog without permission. The same goes for creating merchandise that you plan to sell to the public which incorporates someone's name or photograph. With the limited exception for "incidental advertising use" discussed below, you need to get consent for commercial uses like these. But what about a casual reference to your neighbor in a blog post? Or what if you write an article about a local politician that features his photograph? Or what if you publish a photograph that you took of a famous actress walking down the red carpet at the Oscars? Fortunately, the law does not give individuals the right to stop all mention, discussion, or reporting on their lives or activities. The common law of most states creates an exception to liability for news reporting and commentary on matters of public interest, and many state statutes explicitly exempt news reporting and other expressive activities from liability. Despite these substantial protections, it is a good practice to obtain consent of the person depicted when you publish photographs or other personal information about someone on your blog, especially if your use might be construed as commercial or promotional.

Who Can Sue for Unlawful Use of Name or Likeness

Only human beings, and not corporations or other organizations, have rights of publicity and privacy interests that can be invaded by misappropriation of name or likeness. Thus, only individuals can sue for unlawful use of name or likeness, unless a human being has transferred his or her rights to an organization. Note that companies may sue you for trademark infringement and unfair competition if you exploit their brand names for commercial purposes. See the Trademark section for details.

In some states, celebrities cannot sue for misappropriation of name and likeness (on the theory that they have no privacy interest to protect), and non-celebrities may not sue for violation of the right of publicity (on the theory that their personalities have no commercial value). The growing trend, however, is to permit both celebrities and non-celebrities to sue for both misappropriation and violation of the right of publicity, as long as they can establish the relevant kind of harm.

You cannot invade the privacy of a dead person, so you generally cannot be sued for misappropriation of the name or likeness of a dead person, unless the misappropriation took place before the person in question died. However, in many states the right of publicity survives after death, so you could be sued for violating the publicity rights of a dead person. This is most likely to come up with dead celebrities.

Elements of a Claim for Unlawful Use of Name or Likeness

A plaintiff must establish three elements to hold someone liable for unlawful use of name or likeness:

1. Use of a Protected Attribute: The plaintiff must show that the defendant used an aspect of his or her identity that is protected by the law. This ordinarily means a plaintiff's name or likeness, but the law protects certain other personal attributes as well.
2. For an Exploitative Purpose: The plaintiff must show that the defendant used his name, likeness, or other personal attributes for commercial or other exploitative purposes. Use of someone's name or likeness for news reporting and other expressive purposes is not exploitative, so long as there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the plaintiff's identity and a matter of legitimate public interest.
3. No Consent: The plaintiff must establish that he or she did not give permission for the offending use.

Below, we address these elements in greater detail. Keep in mind that misappropriation and right of publicity are state-law legal claims, so there is some variation of the law in different states. For state-specific information, see State Law: Right of Publicity and Misappropriation.

Use of a Protected Attribute

A plaintiff bringing a misappropriation or right of publicity claim must show that the defendant used attributes of his or her identity that are protected by the law. Usually, this means showing that the defendant used the plaintiff's name or likeness. With regard to use of a name, it does not have to be a full or formal name, just something that is sufficient to identify the plaintiff. Using a well-known nickname can suffice. For instance, in Faegre & Benson, LLP v. Purday, 367 F. Supp. 2d 1238 (D. Minn. 2005), the court held that the defendant had misappropriated the plaintiff's name when he used the pseudonym that the plaintiff blogged under in the domain name for a website. "Likeness" refers to a visual image of the plaintiff, whether in a photograph, drawing, caricature, or other visual presentation. The visual image need not precisely reproduce the plaintiff's appearance, or even show his or her face, so long as it is enough to evoke the plaintiff's identity in the eyes of the public.

The law protects other personal attributes or aspects of identity from unauthorized use as well. For example, courts have held that use of a celebrity's voice can violate the right of publicity. See, e.g., Midler v. Ford Motor Co., 849 F.2d 460 (9th Cir. 1988). One court held a defendant liable for using the slogan "Here's Johnny" as a brand name for portable toilets because it sufficiently evoked Johnny Carson's identity. See Carson v. Here's Johnny Portable Toilets, Inc., 698 F.2d 831 (6th Cir. 1983). In other examples, courts have held defendants liable for using a photograph of the plaintiff's race car in a television commercial, see Motschenbacher v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 498 F.2d 821 (9th Cir. 1974), and creating a commercial featuring a robot decked out to resemble Vanna White and posing next to a Wheel of Fortune game board, see White v. Samsung Elec. Am., Inc., 917 F.2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1992). In all of these cases, the common rationale was that the attribute in question was sufficient to identify the plaintiff and evoke their identity for the public.

Note also that the Supreme Court has recognized that state law may protect a celebrity's right of publicity in the content of his or her unique performance. In Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 433 U.S. 562 (1977), the Court held that Ohio could constitutionally recognize Hugo Zacchini's right of publicity in his "human canonball" performance.

Some state statutes limit liability to the unauthorized use of particular attributes. For example, the New York statute only covers "name, portrait, picture or voice," N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 51, the California statute covers only "name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness," Cal. Civ. Code § 3344(a), and the Massachusetts statute covers only "name, portrait, or picture," Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 214, § 3A. Depending on state law, relief for the use of a wider array of personal attributes may be available under the common law (i.e., judge-made law). See State Law: Right of Publicity and Misappropriation for details.

Exploitative Purpose

A plaintiff bringing a misappropriation or right of publicity claim must show that the defendant used his or her name, likeness, or other personal attribute for an exploitative purpose. The meaning of "exploitative purpose" differs depending on whether we are dealing with a right of publicity or a misappropriation claim:

Exploitative Purpose: Right of Publicity

The right of publicity is the right of a person to control and make money from the commercial use of his or her identity. A plaintiff that sues you for interfering with that right generally must show that you used his or her name or likeness for a commercial purpose. This ordinarily means using the plaintiff's name or likeness in advertising or promoting your goods or services, or placing the plaintiff's name or likeness on or in products or services you sell to the public. Therefore, it is a bad idea to create an advertisement suggesting that a celebrity -- or anyone for that matter -- endorses your website or blog. It is equally unwise to use someone else's name as the title of your website or blog, especially if you host advertisements. You can be liable even without creating a false sense that the person in question endorses your product or service; the key is that you are exploiting the plaintiff's identity to drive traffic or obtain some other commercial benefit.

It may also be an exploitative commercial use to sell subscriptions to your site in return for access to content relating to a specific (usually famous) individual. For instance, one court held that a website operator violated Bret Michaels and Pamela Anderson's rights of publicity by providing website users access to a Michaels-Anderson sex video in return for a subscription fee. See Michaels v. Internet Entm't Group, 5 F. Supp.2d 823 (C.D. Cal. 1998). In another example, a court issued an injunction prohibiting a website operator from violating Paris Hilton's right of publicity by selling subscriptions to a website providing access to photographs of her and other private materials belonging to her. See Hilton v. Persa, No. 07-cv-00667 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2007), and our database entry on the case for additional details.

Exploitative Purpose: Misappropriation of Name or Likeness

Most lawsuits claiming invasion of privacy through misappropriation of name or likeness also involve commercial uses of the plaintiff's identity, such as in advertising or promoting products or services. For example, one of the first cases to recognize a legal claim for misappropriation sprang out of the defendant's use of the plaintiff's photograph in an advertisement for life insurance. See Pavesich v. New England Life Ins. Co., 50 S.E. 68 (Ga. 1905). You also may be held liable for some non-commercial uses of someone's name or likeness if you exploit the plaintiff's identity for your own benefit.

For example, one court has held that an anti-abortion activist who registered domain names incorporating the names and nicknames of his ideological rivals had misappropriated their names for his own benefit. See Faegre & Benson, LLP v. Purdy, 367 F. Supp. 2d 1238 (D. Minn. 2005). The court also held that the defendant had committed misappropriation through a form of sock puppetry -- namely, he posted comments on his own bulletin board pretending to be lawyers from a law firm that fought for abortion rights; in these comments, he expressed opinions and views that were favorable to his own position that abortion is immoral. See Faegre & Benson, LLP v. Purdy, 447 F. Supp. 2d 1008 (D. Minn. 2006). In another case, a professor created non-commercial websites and email accounts containing portions of the names of several of his former colleagues. Using these email accounts, the professor then sent emails to a number of universities, pretending to nominate these former colleagues for university positions and directing readers back to his websites, which contained critical posts about the nominated individuals. When the University and his former colleagues sued, an Indiana state court found that he had committed misappropriation. The Supreme Court of Indiana affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the professor had exploited the plaintiffs' names for his own benefit "in that [the misappropriation] enabled him to pursue a personal vendetta." Felsher v. Univ. of Evansville, 755 N.E.2d 589, 600 (Ind. 2001).

One court has held that posting a photograph of a real estate agent on a "gripe site" dedicated to criticizing him was not sufficiently exploitative to impose liability. The court reasoned that the defendant had not published the photo in order to "tak[e] advantage of [the real estate agent's] reputation, prestige, or other value associated with him, for purposes of publicity," but only "as a part of a declaration of his opinion." McMann v. Doe, No. 06-11825-JLT (D. Mass. Oct. 31, 2006).

As a general matter, then, it is a good idea to avoid impersonating other individuals on the Internet for political or even personal reasons, because that may be sufficiently exploitative to result in liability for misappropriation. On the other hand, simply using someone's name or likeness in the process of expressing your opinion is probably safe, especially given the exception for news and commentary discussed below.

Consent

Consent is a complete defense to a legal claim for misappropriation of name or likeness or violation of the right of publicity. When you gather information from or take photographs of an individual, it is a good practice to ask for consent to use the material on your website, blog, or other online platform. Make sure to get consent in writing whenever possible.

When taking photographs or video of someone, you can use a model release form. Some examples of model releases can be found at the American Society of Media Photographers ( model release for adult, model release for minor child, simplified model release, and pocket release), and the New York Institute of Photography. You can find additional samples by doing a basic Internet search for "model release." Note that you can choose between various types of model release, which are of varying complexity. You may be better off using one of the simpler forms, unless you are planning on using someone's name or likeness in advertising or an obviously commercial use. All of these sample releases need to be customized to your own particular circumstances and purposes. You should not use someone's photograph for a purpose or in a type of media not covered by the release because then the release will be ineffective.

For interviewing someone (with or without taking photographs), it is also good practice to obtain an interview release form. This release can protect you against publication of private facts claims in addition to misappropriation and right of publicity claims. Some examples of interview releases can be found in Stanford's Copyright and Fair Use Guide, and at EmilioCorsetti.com and the University of Michigan Press. You can find additional samples by doing a basic Internet search for "interview release," and the book The Copyright Permission and Libel Handbook by Lloyd J. Jassin and Steven C. Schecter has two excellent examples. There are a number of different kinds of interview release forms; you will need to choose and customize one to suit your own purposes. As above, you should not use someone's name or likeness for a purpose or in a type of media not covered by the release.

If, instead, you obtain photographs for use on your website or blog from a publicly available source on the Internet, it may be more difficult to obtain the consent of the persons depicted in those photographs, especially if they are celebrities. In close cases, where you are not sure whether your proposed use is commercial or otherwise exploitative, or where you are unsure whether your use fits within the protection for "news and commentary" (see below), you should do your best to obtain consent. If you cannot get it, then you should consider using a different image. When using photographs that you did not personally take, you need to worry about copyright law in addition to name or likeness issues. Getting permission from the person depicted in the photograph only stops a claim for misappropriation or violation of the right of publicity. You also need to get copyright permission from the person who took the photograph (or whoever owns the copyright). For details on getting permission to use a copyrighted work, see Copyright Licenses and Transfers.

Children cannot consent on their own behalf. When using the name or likeness of a minor (generally someone under the age of eighteen), you should seek consent from the minor's parent. Some of the example release forms linked to above are geared toward getting the consent of minors. Keep in mind that people giving you consent can revoke (i.e., take back) that consent anytime before the use of their name or photograph takes place. Therefore, you should honor the decisions of consenting persons who suddenly change their minds, so long as publication hasn't already taken place.

Free Expression Limitations on Liability

Fortunately, the law places important limitations on misappropriation and right of publicity claims, which help to protect your right of free expression and to safeguard the free flow of information in society. Below, we discuss these limitations in detail.

Exception for News and Commentary

You generally cannot be held liable for using someone's name, likeness, or other personal attributes in connection with reporting or commenting on matters of public interest. Many courts view this as a constitutional privilege based on the First Amendment, and some states have statutes explicitly exempting news reporting and commentary on public issues from liability. It is not always easy to determine what will qualify as news or legitimate commentary, especially on the Internet. But the courts traditionally have taken an extremely broad view of "news" and "commentary" -- it encompasses any reporting or commenting on current events or social issues, "soft news" which is of primarily entertainment value, and conveyance of information on past events of interest. The exception is extremely broad, and would encompass almost anything that conveys information or comments on a topic of even arguable public interest. For example, courts have found that the following media uses qualified for the exception:

an Internet bulletin board devoted to discussing Howard Stern's candidacy for governor;

an unauthorized biography of a celebrity;

a magazine report on meeting women at summer concerts, with photos of some of the women;

a TV news report on allegations that an orthopedist was sexually assaulting his female patients;

a magazine article discussing a research study about how caffeine affects fertility, with a photo of a large family;

a fundraising letter discussing public policy questions in the field of education and relating a local political figure's praise of the organization sending the letter;

a magazine article on contemporary attitudes of Irish-Americans in New York City, including a photo of an individual dressed up for the Saint Patrick's Day parade;

a magazine article featuring the plaintiff as "Asshole of the Month," with a photograph of the plaintiff superimposed over the rear-end of a bent-over naked man;

a book profiling the various leading securities experts and analyzing their strategies;

a magazine article about a "bomber jacket," with information about the approximate price, the name of the designer, stores where it could be purchased, and a photograph of the plaintiff modeling the jacket;

a report that a professional female tennis star had posed nude for a photograph; and

a report on teenage grooming.

There are literally thousands of additional examples. While most of these cases involved the traditional print and broadcast media, there is no reason to believe that the exception for news and commentary will not apply to your online activities. One case, Stern v. Delphi Internet Services Corporation, 626 N.Y.S.2d 694 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995), addressed this question directly and held that the news and commentary exception applied to the defendant's online bulletin board service.

Hosting advertisements on your site does not deprive you of the news and commentary exception. The courts have long recognized that for-profit news organizations that sell advertising space are entitled to protection. See, e.g., Arrington v. New York Times, 434 N.E.2d 1319, 1322 (1982); Berkos v. National Broad. Co., 515 N.E.2d 668, 679 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987). This principle should extend to online platforms that sell advertising space.

There are two important limitations on the exception for news and commentary:

First, if the plaintiff can show that your use of his or her name or likeness bears no reasonable relationship to the content of the news or commentary presented, then you may be liable for creating an "advertisement in disguise." This usually comes up with photographs used to illustrate otherwise newsworthy stories. As a general rule, it is never a good idea to illustrate an article or post with a completely unrelated photograph, especially if the purpose of the photograph is simply to catch the public's attention or draw traffic to your site.

Some courts have let media defendants get away with using photographs of people who are not actually discussed in the article in question. For instance, the New York Court of Appeals held that a magazine lawfully could use the photograph of a large family to illustrate its article on a research study about caffeine and fertility, even though the family did not participate in the study. The court ruled that the photograph of the family was reasonably related to the "theme" of fertility that ran throughout the article. See Finger v. Omni Publ'n Int'l Ltd., 566 N.E.2d 141 (N.Y. 1990). Other courts have rejected this view, holding that there is no reasonable relationship between the photograph and the subject matter of the article if the person in the photograph is not mentioned in the text. For instance, in Christianson v. Henry Holt & Company, 2007 WL 2680822 (C.D. Ill. June 29, 2007), the court ruled in favor of a woman whose photograph appeared on the cover of the book Nickel and Dimed. Although the book itself dealt with a newsworthy topic, the author and publisher could not use the woman's photograph on the cover because she was never mentioned in the book.

Using a photograph of a totally unrelated person to illustrate a story may also create liability for defamation and false light invasion of privacy. See Overview of Publishing Information That Harms Reputation for details on these two legal claims.

Second, the Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment does not protect the media when they appropriate a celebrity's entire performance without compensation, even in connection with a newsworthy story or program. In Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 433 U.S. 562 (1977), a news reporter videotaped Hugo Zacchini's "human cannonball" act at a county fair without permission, and his employer broadcast the entire fifteen-second act on the evening news. The Supreme Court held that the First Amendment did not prevent liability for violation of the right of publicity, even though the broadcast was newsworthy. Therefore, it is not a good idea to record and publish all or most of someone's performance (e.g., a live musical or dance performance) without permission, even if the performance is legitimately newsworthy.

Protection for Creative Works

The First Amendment and the laws of many states also protect your use of someone's name or likeness in creative works and other forms of entertainment. Included in this category are things like novels that include mention of real-life figures, historical fiction, movies based loosely on real-life events, "docudramas," works of art that incorporate an individual's photo or image, and acts of parody directed at an individual. Some state statutes explicitly exempt these kinds of work from liability for misappropriation or violation of the right of publicity. See, e.g., 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8316(e)(2) (link is to entire code; you need to click through to title 42, part VII, chapter 83, subchapter A, and then choose the specific provision); Wash Rev. Code § 63.60.070(1). In other states, the courts look at the creative or artistic work in question and decide on a case-by-case basis whether the First Amendment values at stake trump the plaintiff's rights of privacy and publicity. See State Law: Right of Publicity and Misappropriation for details.

As a general matter, you will not be held liable for using someone's name or likeness in a creative, entertaining, or artistic work that is transformative, meaning that you add some substantial creative element over and above the mere depiction of the person. In other words, the First Amendment ordinarily protects you if you use someone's name or likeness to create something new that is recognizably your own, rather than something that just evokes and exploits the person's identity.

For instance, in one case an artist created and sold t-shirts that contained a realistic depiction of The Three Stooges, and the company which owns the publicity rights sued. The California Supreme Court recognized that the First Amendment generally protects artistic and creative works, but found that the t-shirts in question were not sufficiently transformative because "the artist's skill and talent [was] manifestly subordinated to the overall goal of creating a conventional portrait of a celebrity so as to commercially exploit his or her fame." Comedy III Prods., Inc. v. Gary Saderup, Inc., 21 P.3d 797, 810 (Cal. 2001). In another case, the artist Barbara Kruger created an untitled work that incorporated a photograph of Charlotte Dabny holding a large magnifying glass over her right eye (which itself was a famous photograph by German photographer Thomas Hoepker). Kruger cropped and enlarged the photographic image, transferred it to silkscreen and superimposed three large red blocks containing the sentence "It's a small world but not if you have to clean it." A New York court held that Dabny could not recover for misappropriation because Kruger's artistic work was protected by the First Amendment because Kruger had added sufficiently transformative elements. See Hoepker v. Kruger, 200 F. Supp.2d 340 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).

Incidental Advertising Use

If you use someone's name or likeness in connection with news reporting, commentary, or a creative work protected by the First Amendment, then you can also use it in connection with truthful advertising of your own work. Courts refer to this as the "incidental use" doctrine. This doctrine permits TV news shows to use "teaser" ads including images of people reported on during the main program, and publishers to create book jackets and advertisements for unauthorized biographies containing the name or photograph of the book's subject.

One court has held that this doctrine applies to online activities as well. In Stern v. Delphi Internet Services Corporation, 626 N.Y.S.2d 694 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995), an Internet service provider set up an on-line bulletin board dedicated to discussion of Howard Stern's candidacy for governor. To advertise its service, the company took out a full page advertisement in New York Magazine featuring a photograph of Stern in leather pants which exposed his buttocks. An accompanying caption read "Should this man be the next governor of New York?" The advertisement invited readers to purchase Internet access from the ISP and to join the online debate about Stern. The court held that, because the ISP could lawfully use Stern's name for its online bulletin board (i.e., it fit the news and commentary exception -- see above), it could also use his name and photo to advertise that service. The court noted that "New York courts have consistently held that the incidental advertising exception applies to all 'news disseminators,' not just newspapers and magazines." There is no reason to believe courts in other states would not reach a similar result.

So, for example, if you write an article about a celebrity, you should be able to use that celebrity's name and image sparingly for purposes of promoting the article.

Special Types of Websites

Social Networking Sites

Operating a social networking site presents special problems relating to misappropriation and rights of publicity. Such sites obviously incorporate the names and likenesses of those people who join the network, and it is not yet clear from a legal perspective whether the type of information conveyed by a social networking site fits into the "news and commentary" exception to liability. Although the famous social networking sites have teams of well-paid lawyers, others interested in incorporating social networking functionality into their websites need to be aware of how using the name or likeness of another can lead to liability.

Because of the legal uncertainty surrounding this topic, people interested in using social networking functionality should seek consent from account holders in their terms of use. A clause like this, from Facebook's terms of use, may be helpful:

By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose, commercial, advertising, or otherwise, on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing.

This should help protect against misappropriation and right of publicity claims brought by users based on the photos and other materials they upload. Incidentally, having users agree to such a clause also gives you the permissions you need to avoid copyright claims brought by users.

A different problem arises when someone creates a false profile on a social networking site. In these cases, the person whose name or likeness is being used improperly is not an account holder and has not given consent. The law is not settled on this point yet, but it appears that a person whose name or likeness is posted to a false profile may have a valid legal claim for misappropriation and/or violation of the right of publicity. Beyond that, false profiles often lead to defamation claims against the person who posted the false profile. See Law.com's article, Fake Online Profiles Trigger Suits, for examples. From the perspective of the website operator, defamation claims based on fake profiles are not a serious legal threat because section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA 230) provides immunity from defamation claims based on third-party content. See Immunity under CDA 230 for details on immunity from liability for user-generated content.

In Doe v. Friendfinder Network, Inc., 2008 WL 803947 (D.N.H. Mar. 27, 2008), someone created a false profile of a real woman (we'll call her Jane Doe) on the social networking site "Adult Friendfinder." The false profile included biographical information about Jane, along with spurious statements about her sexual proclivities. The photograph posted to the profile was not Jane, but she alleged that the biographical information was sufficient to identify her to people in her community. The social networking site not only hosted the fake profile, but incorporated it into teaser advertisements that appeared on Internet search engines when users entered search terms matching some of the information in the profile, including true biographical information about Jane. The teaser ads also appeared on other "sexually related" websites. Jane sued the adult social networking site, bringing various state law claims including invasion of privacy and publicity rights. The court held that, under the circumstances, she had stated a valid claim for violation of her right of publicity. In addition, the court held that CDA 230, which immunizes website operators from many state law legal claims based on user-generated content, does not apply to right of publicity claims. Therefore, Jane's claim against the social networking site could go forward, despite the fact that a third-party created the profile.

To deal with the fake profile issue, you might want to include a clause in your terms of service that requires users not to post material that would violate a third-party's privacy or publicity rights. Technically, this might help you recover some of the costs if you are sued by someone for hosting a fake profile. In reality, it may be impossible to identify who posted the fake profile, and they may not have any money to pay you.

Your best defense against these types of lawsuits is to create a mechanism for aggrieved individuals to submit complaints and to respond expeditiously to complaints about fake profiles. In addition, you can help protect yourself by not using user profiles in any sort of advertising or site promotion.

Fan Sites

Fan sites pertaining to a celebrity, such as a sports figure, musician, or movie star, are potentially vulnerable to right of publicity and misappropriation claims because they rely so heavily on the name and likeness of their particular hero. In the last year, we've documented two examples of this problem. In July 2007, Patrick O'Keefe, the operator of the fan site MarianoRivera.com received a cease-and-desist letter from SFX Baseball Group, which represents Yankees baseball player, Mariano Rivera. The letter asserted that the site's use of the domain name, marianorivera.com, violated Mr. Rivera's right of publicity and federal trademark law. After discussions, an SFX representative told O'Keefe that he could continue to operate the website, but refused to give any assurances about the future. See our database entry, SFX Baseball Group v. MarianoRivera.com, for details. In another example, pop star Prince sent a number of cease-and-desist letters to Prince fan sites in November 2007, claiming right of publicity violations and copyright infringement. The letters asked the fan sites to remove all photographs, images, lyrics, album covers, and anything linked to Prince's likeness. After Prince got a lot of bad publicity, the parties entered into negotiations, which appear to be ongoing. See our database entry, Prince v. Prince Fan Sites, for details.

Whether fan sites like these actually violate the publicity or privacy rights of their idols is not clear under the law. The best legal arguments in favor of fan sites are probably that they provide "news" about the celebrity in question and that their use of the celebrity's name or likeness is not commercial or otherwise exploitative (this argument may be stronger if the site hosts no advertisements whatsoever). These sites should avoid selling merchandise, like t-shirts or coffee mugs, emblazoned with the name or likeness of their particular celebrity. In the end, we will have to await further guidance from the courts on these issues.

Fan sites also raise copyright and trademark issues; consult the Intellectual Property section for more information.

Statute of Limitations

The "statute of limitations" is a term used by courts to describe the maximum amount of time plaintiffs can wait before bringing a lawsuit after the events they are suing over took place. This time limit is set by state law and is intended to promote fairness and keep old cases from clogging the courts. In misappropriation and right of publicity cases, the statute of limitations ordinarily runs from the date of first publication or exhibition of the offending use of the plaintiff's name or likeness. The limitations period varies based on state law; for misappropriation and right of publicity claims, it can be anywhere from one to six years. For specific information on limitations periods applicable to particular state law claims, see the State Law: Right of Publicity pages.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In most states, you can be sued for using someone else's name, likeness, or other personal attributes without permission for an exploitative purpose. Usually, people run into trouble in this area when they use someone's name or photograph in a commercial setting, such as in advertising or other promotional activities.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi everyone!I have just found an article which supports my team

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The advent of digital cameras brought on a new era in photography and it's a prolific one. The number of photos we take each year has sky rocketed. In fact, in a recent presentation by Yahoo!, it was claimed that as many as 880 BILLION photos will be taken in 2014 if we continue on the current trend. That's a lot.

The folks as Buzzfeed have put together a simple video that sums up everything that happens on the web in a single minute and it includes some interesting info about photos.

According to the video, 27,800 photos are uploaded to Instagram every minute. That's not surprising, especially since we know Instagram passed five billion photos last year during its transition to Facebook.

As for Facebook proper, they get 208,300 photos uploaded every minute. Facebook has always been a bit vague about exactly how many photos they get over a period of time, but they've gone on record to say that it's over six billion photos per month. It's likely even more than that now. For scale, Yahoo!'s Flickr service has gotten about eight billion photos during its whole run.

Another interesting factoid is that more than 100 hours of video will be uploaded to Youtube, which is rather insane when you consider that almost all of it is HD and how much storage and bandwidth that requires.

While this gives us an interesting little taste of a few of the biggest players in the photo sharing game, trying to wrap our heads around the actual number of images uploaded to the web seems like a Herculean task. In fact, with the new Flickr alive and kicking, there has probably been a noticeable bump there alone.

And while the actual number will likely be forever elusive, it's an effective reminder of just how many photos are out there. So, if you want yours to get notice, it's probably best to get creative.

From: Gizmodo

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Many Photos Are Uploaded to The Internet Every Minute?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The advent of digital cameras brought on a new era in photography and it's a prolific one. The number of photos we take each year has sky rocketed. In fact, in a recent presentation by Yahoo!, it was claimed that as many as 880 BILLION photos will be taken in 2014 if we continue on the current trend.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi guys! I have an article that supports our team.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
People posting your photos without permission? It's illegal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
(WVUE) - Some parents say they've fallen victim to a disturbing trend known as "digital kidnapping." Last month an Alabama mother was horrified to see that her 16-month-old daughter was the target of mean-spirited "memes" that were shared across social media. The images suggested that the healthy girl had cancer.

# data[].attributes.headline
Should it be illegal to post pictures of someone on social media without their permission?

# data[].attributes.subject
Should it be illegal to post pictures of someone on social media without their permission?

# data[].attributes.body
Hey guys :) Welcome back. I have some material prepared for you all today following last week's discussion on the above topic. I hope to see you all today at 17:30 to prepare for our upcoming debate.

# data[].attributes.body
Hey guys, I hope you're all looking forward to today's lesson where we'll be continuing our discussion on 'Is the school exam system unfair?'. I've formatted and printed last lesson's notes for you all for ease of reference.  See you all at 5:30 :)

# data[].attributes.body
I found something to support our team https://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/sep/26/school-no-rules-teaches-unteachable-ian-mikardo

# data[].attributes.body
I found something to support our team

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Answer (1 of 4): School rules - just like any set of societally imposed regulations - serve to create a learning climate, and set out the expectations of those within that climate. It also teaches the young that there are limits to the behaviors that they may engage in, and that these limits - ju...

# data[].attributes.body
Hi i have just found an article which supports our team.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Topics, Sample Papers & Articles Online for Free

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sorry, but copying text is forbidden on this website!

"RULES ARE THERE TO BE FOLLOWED. WITHOUT RULES NOTHING GETS DONE." It seems that in today's world rules are everywhere. For instance, type a quick search for "rules" into the Google search engine and you will return over 604 million web pages that mention rules. One can find sites which outline rules on correct Internet usage to rules on ordering Mail Order Brides! Undoubtedly rules are quite important in the everyday running of our lives and yes, rules are there to be followed, but in my opinion to say, that without rules nothing gets done is akin to saying that without cutlery no one would eat. Along the same line as rules, cutlery has evolved from being quite rudimentary and has been transmogrified into an over elaborate, almost unnecessary feature at some of the more upper crust dinner parties and at the more elegant restaurants and diners where up to 14 pieces of cutlery are commonplace. This is quite similar to the whole concept of rules which have grown increasingly more complicated with the rise of big business over the last few centuries. Management is growing increasingly more worried about following correct protocol and ensuring that they follow the rules to the point of absurdity. Upon researching for this project I found many amusing anecdotes detailing the complete lunacy, with which rules are followed in various different organisations. School rules and regulations are made not to be broken. Rules are made for the safety and better welfare of the students in school. Another is to promote good behavior among students and to maintain the good image of the school. Parents send their children to school in order for them to learn not only academic values, but also moral values. Implementing school rules will help the students mold their character and values expected from them by other people.

There are certain factors why nowadays, students tend not to follow rules disseminated by the school despite of the punishments they will have to face for doing such actions. Some of the reasons are as follows: peer pressure, drugs, poverty, homelessness, low self esteem, lack of love, boredom, bad instructions, unclear rules, unclear expectations, psychological problems, lack of parental supervision and guidance, and media influences.

Let us try to consider the saying, "MASARAP GAWIN ANG BAWAL." According to some students, breaking rules is a part of every teenager's life especially in high school. Because this is the period where you will find your true peers and get to know more about life. They say that it is not bad to break rules when you don't get caught doing it because it is part of one's challenge. And there goes your second attempt of doing it again.

Use of illegal drugs another factor why a student gets away with the rules. Any person under the influence of drugs sees no reasons at all. They become more aggressive in anything, uncontrollable, think unreasonably and act strange. Drugs have different effects in every individual, but one thing in common, is that drugs makes a person quite disillusioned and do whatever he wants to do though he knows he is breaking what is right.

An individual that has no enough funds to sustain himself or his family is capable of doing what is wrong. Because he lacks something, he becomes desperate and in that way, he thinks and acts differently.... School rules are quite important because they are made for the safety and better welfare of the students in school. It is mainly used to promote good behaviour among students and to maintain the good image of the school. School rules are very important because without rules and boundaries, the students will freely do whatever they please. So, to set boundaries and limits, school rules are important. School rules are important because there are hundreds of children inside of a school and safety is a concern. Rules need to be followed in order to keep things in line. School rules are important because they create an expectation for all students. Without rules, some kids might not show up on time or do their homework. There are lots of reasons why we need school rules. Here are a few of them. First you need rules so that you won't get hurt in fights like breaking your arm or leg. Classroom rules may include everything from warnings against throwing things to a prohibition against fighting. These rules hold special importance because, generally only one supervisor Childhood is a totalitarian regime, and schools are the mental concentration camps. Education is described by the mis-educated as real-life preparation; in actuality, schools train people to accept a society where the government and other institutions tell us what to think and do. Experience is the best teacher, and the purpose of school is to prevent experience.

If school attendance were voluntary, schools would have to reform themselves to meet students needs, because if students could leave on a whim, schools would suddenly have to prove their worth. But by not giving us a choice about whether to accept the government's favors early on, we all unwillingly sign a contract with Uncle Sam that says: "Since you did so much for me in my early years, I'll return the favor by letting you take away half of my money and tell me how to live my life." Because kids grow up in an oppressive society, it's predictable that when they leave the controlled world of childhood, they vote for politicians who promise security instead of freedom.

Few adults understand freedom and individual rights because we're taught about the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights in school, the most authoritarian environment in America next to prisons. Kids learn early on that even in a free country you are mandated to sit in cramped desks, read, write, and listen against your will. If you think for yourself in school, you get bad grades, and that's why America doesn't notice the government stripping away our rights. When our minds are impressionable, we learn that freedom means taking orders. Government officials should not teach the Bill of Rights until they've read it for themselves.

The compulsory education system hasn't changed because it's insidiously self-promotional. People are told over and over that school is necessary for success, so almost all graduates, and even dropouts, believe it. Selective memory and propagandic yearbooks help adults... School rules and regulations are made not to be broken. Rules are made for the safety and better welfare of the students in school. Another is to promote good behavior among students and to maintain the good image of the school. Parents send their children to school in order for them to learn not only academic values, but also moral values. Implementing school rules will help the students mold their character and values expected from them by other people.

There are certain factors why nowadays, students tend not to follow rules disseminated by the school despite of the punishments they will have to face for doing such actions. Some of the reasons are as follows: peer pressure, drugs, poverty, homelessness, low self esteem, lack of love, boredom, bad instructions, unclear rules, unclear expectations, psychological problems, lack of parental supervision and guidance, and media influences.

Let us try to consider the saying, "MASARAP GAWIN ANG BAWAL." According to some students, breaking rules is a part of every teenager's life especially in high school. Because this is the period where you will find your true peers and get to know more about life. They say that it is not bad to break rules when you don't get caught doing it because it is part of one's challenge. And there goes your second attempt of doing it again.

Use of illegal drugs another factor why a student gets away with the rules. Any person under the influence of drugs sees no reasons at all. They become more aggressive in anything, uncontrollable, think unreasonably and act strange. Drugs have different effects in every individual, but one thing in common, is that drugs makes a person quite disillusioned and do whatever he wants to do though he knows he is breaking what is right.

An individual that has no enough funds to sustain himself or his family is capable of doing what is wrong. Because he lacks something, he becomes desperate and in that way, he thinks and acts differently....

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sorry, but copying text is forbidden on this website! "RULES ARE THERE TO BE FOLLOWED. WITHOUT RULES NOTHING GETS DONE." It seems that in today's world rules are everywhere. For instance, type a quick search for "rules" into the Google search engine and you will return over 604 million web pages that mention rules.

# data[].attributes.headline
Josie                                                              I find something to support my group

# data[].attributes.subject
Josie                                                              I find something to support my group

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Are today's kids too soft? One principal in New Zealand thinks so, and has embarked on a radical experiment - he's thrown out the playground rule book. Kids do whatever they like at recess, and it's a free-for-all. His only directive to them is "Don't kill anyone." Dani Isdale went to see the chaos for herself, and discovered some surprising results.

BRUCE MCLACHLAN, PRINCIPAL: It's a noble profession, and I've been a teacher for over 30 years. I love kids. Being with kids is a great job to do. So that's who I am. I am an ex-kid, and I like having fun.
The peace and quiet of his office is a sanctuary for Bruce McLachlan. His dog, Chelsea, can - and does - hide here. But as principal, he can't ignore what's going on outside. Here, on the outskirts of Auckland, students as young as five do whatever they want in the playground. They roam around with no shoes but plenty of homemade weapons. They climb as high as they can, and often higher. Not in secret, but blatantly - proudly. These kids don't care who sees.
CHILD: And there's basically no rules.

CHILD 2: Yeah, there's no rules.

CHILD: Basically.
Before school, the kids make the rules.
WOMAN: Wait, please! yeah!
But in the two 40-minute play sessions - after forced food breaks - anything goes. REPORTER: Are you scared? I'd be scared.
CHILD: You'd be scared because you might be too heavy!
Oh, thanks! No rules, no limits - no problem for the principal. REPORTER: What do you call this, Bruce? Chaos?
BRUCE MCLACHLAN: Yeah. Organised chaos.

REPORTER: Doesn't look very organised to me!

BRUCE MCLACHLAN: No. This looks a mess, Rosie!
To me, it looked dangerous.
REPORTER: Don't you worry when they're climbing up high?

BRUCE MCLACHLAN: I always say to people when they're looking and they see, "Oh, a kid might get hurt!" I say, "Don't look."

REPORTER: That is very, very high.

BRUCE MCLACHLAN: If it worries you, don't look.

REPORTER: When do you step in? How far is too far?

BRUCE MCLACHLAN: Personally, I wouldn't step in at all. I would wait for a kid to come to me for help. So when kids are on their own, learning to do things for themselves, some of the lessons might be hard, but they're good lessons, it's good learning.
When Bruce strolls through the playground, the kids know he's there. Can't miss those shoes! They also know there's only one thing they could do to make him really mad.
REPORTER: Do you have any rules?

BRUCE MCLACHLAN: I suppose there are rules that people understand are rules in society, you know? Kids aren't allowed to kill each other.

REPORTER: So that's the only rule - a kid can't kill another kid?

BRUCE MCLACHLAN: Yeah. Yeah.
It's been three years since Bruce introduced free-range-kids play breaks.
BRUCE MCLACHLAN: The idea was to stop saying "no". We didn't say "You can't do that," we just turned a blind eye. Over a period of time, we turned a blind eye to everything, because actually, nothing that the kids were doing was a problem.
The real problem, he says, is mollycoddling.
BRUCE MCLACHLAN: The birth of helicopter parenting - the need to wrap our kids up in cotton wool and not give them an opportunity to hurt themselves. When you do that for the very best of reasons, you're actually taking away a lot of learning opportunities for kids.
So, Bruce decided to throw out the rule book without asking the parents.
BRUCE MCLACHLAN: We didn't actually tell them what we were doing. What we were doing was basically just taking away the rules gradually, and letting kids be kids.
Needless to say, the kids think he's great. But then, they would.
BOY: I'll do one more, then I'll go back to class.

BOY 2: It's a bow and arrow with sticks and string. It's made of it.

REPORTER: What do you do with it?

BOY 2: Ah, you shoot it. OK. I'm still really careful not to hit anyone, though.

BRUCE MCLACHLAN: What do you do when you can do anything you like? What do you do?

CHILD: Have fun. We, like, have fun. Climb trees. Hello!

PROFESSOR GRANT SCHOFIELD, AUT UNIVERSITY: Bruce pushed it even way past where I was willing to go.
Professor Grant Schofield and his research into playtime behaviour are partly to blame. What began as a study of childhood obesity became an investigation into how kids play.
PROFESSOR GRANT SCHOFIELD: So we went to a bunch of schools and started to think, "Could we reintroduce the idea of risky, unmanaged play? Kids playing on their own terms?"

CHILD: Hello!

PROFESSOR GRANT SCHOFIELD: And the answer to start with from schools, at least in the higher socioeconomic areas, was, "No."
Bruce said yes. Professor Schofield believes it will pay off, because risk is good for young brains.
PROFESSOR GRANT SCHOFIELD: The bit of the brain that manages risk and controls emotion develops when you expose it to exactly that - risk and emotion. And this frontal lobe, prefrontal cortex in particular, is something that develops through childhood into early adulthood. It's a very important part of the brain. It runs simulations about the consequences of our behaviour. If I behave like this, then this will happen. If I do this, then maybe this will happen.
He says overprotection can do more harm than good.
PROFESSOR GRANT SCHOFIELD: They need this physical stimulus, and they're going to need it at some point in their life. You can do it when they're eight up a tree. You do it when they're 21 in a bar. That's a choice we're making as a society, and we're making that choice consciously.
Still, it's easier to research free-range play than it is to embrace it and to enforce it.
PROFESSOR GRANT SCHOFIELD: Bruce is walking much closer to the line than I am, because he's a hair's breadth away from someone hurting themself, and he being the villain.

ROY WAITE: The number one rule in snorkelling, remember, don't put your head down too far - you're going to fill your snorkel with water and breathe in water.
Roy and Leda Waite have three boys - all students of Swanson School. Curtis broke his arm when he fell off his scooter during free play. Roy took him straight to the emergency room, then went to see Bruce.
BRUCE MCLACHLAN: He came in through the door - it looked as if he had a face like thunder. I showed him to the seat and we all sat down. He started off by saying, "My son broke his arm in the playground last week." I was all set to launch into an apology when he said...

ROY WAITE: I'm happy that he's fallen off and broken his arm, as bad as it sounds as a parent. I was happy that he'd fallen off and learned his lesson and hurt himself at school and so on.

BRUCE MCLACHLAN: I just sort of went, "Wow! That's amazing."
Curtis told me he was really relieved - he didn't want to be the reason the experiment failed.
CURTIS: I used to hate going to school. Now I just love it.
But these days on the scooter, he's a little bit more careful. Bruce says fewer kids hurt themselves now than before the no-rules program was introduced. That's despite the ticking time bombs that litter this playground. The place is an absolute mess. It's full of junk, and they don't even know where lots of it came from. I think kids are just bringing it in from their own houses. There's huge big chunks of timber, jagged edges everywhere, big bits of steel. To adults, it's rubbish. But to kids, it's awesome. The possibilities are endless. And so are the risks. REPORTER: Do you enforce tetanus shots?
BRUCE MCLACHLAN: Ah, no.
I saw them hurt themselves...
CHILD: I climbed. I'm up here. I'm up... Whoa!
I saw them help each other. Be careful. Considerate. Cooperative.
CHILD: We can lift that up this way!
No-one was using iPods, smartphones or game consoles. They're not banned, but the kids seem too busy for technology.
BOY: We're gonna put it down.
The bigger kids who broke up fights seemed to show up just in time, and as soon as the bell rang, they went inside, where the chaos was gone.
BRUCE MCLACHLAN: They're focused on learning here because they have had a chance to burn off all that energy. They've done what they wanted to do, and now they come back in here and they focus on learning.
This calm is proof, Bruce reckons, he's doing the right thing.
BRUCE MCLACHLAN: And those are your choices.
Concentration, he claims, is up, Incidents of bullying, way down, Confidence - sky-high and injuries - far fewer. The teachers took a while to get on board.
DEANNA UTTLEY, TEACHER: I kind of went, "My kids are gonna get knocked over. Bruce is crazy! This is crazy."

....just crazy enough to work.

BRUCE MCLACHLAN: In New Zealand, we do things, perhaps, a little bit differently. I think we like to ask for forgiveness rather than permission. So we just do it.
It's much easier for schools in New Zealand to test radical ideas - there's a national insurance scheme covering the medical costs of personal injuries, so parents don't tend to sue schools.
ROY WAITE: Even if worst-case scenario happens, I certainly wouldn't want to take legal action. I think it's bloody great.
Not because of what the teachers do - but what they don't do. This little girl got stuck and asked for help.
GIRL: Now I forgot how to get down.
When I asked Bruce if I could give her a hand, he told me no.
BRUCE MCLACHLAN: You get up, you get down.
She did. Then, she climbed straight back up.
Reporter/2nd Camera
DANI ISDALE

Producer/Camera
MEGGIE PALMER

Thanks to:
Swanson Primary School students and staff
Principal Bruce McLachlan
The Waite Family

21st October 2014

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Are today's kids too soft? One principal in New Zealand thinks so, and has embarked on a radical experiment - he's thrown out the playground rule book. Kids do whatever they like at recess, and it's a free-for-all. His only directive to them is "Don't kill anyone."

# data[].attributes.body
Hello everyone!  Today we'll be once again revisiting the topic of 'Would you go to a school with no rules?'. I've prepared a print-out with all of the points we discussed last lesson along with the teams. I hope you'll find this useful in today's discussion. I look forward to seeing you all at 5:30pm. Please arrive punctually :)

# data[].attributes.body
I found an article which supports our tea

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A zoo is a place where captive animals are put on display for humans to see. While early zoos (shortened from zoological parks) concentrated on displaying as many unusual creatures as possible-often in small, cramped conditions-the focus of most modern zoos is conservation and education. While zoo advocates and conservationists argue that zoos save endangered species and educate the public, many animal rights activists believe the cost of confining animals outweighs the benefits, and that the violation of the rights of individual animals-even in efforts to fend off extinction-cannot be justified.

A Brief History of Zoos

Humans have kept wild animals for thousands of years. The first efforts to keep wild animals for non-utilitarian uses began about 2500 BCE, when rulers in Mesopotamia, Egypt kept collections in enclosed pens. Modern zoos began to evolve during the 18th century and the Age of Enlightenment, when scientific interest in zoology, as well as the study of animal behavior and anatomy, came to the fore.

Early zoos were a dismal affair. Animals were kept in small enclosures with little if any, greenery. With a scant understanding of what the various animals needed, many perished relatively quickly. In accredited U.S. zoos (and elsewhere) things are better now, fortunately. Primates, for example, have gone from barren cages with little furniture to naturalistic and sometimes semi-free-ranging designs. But is it enough?

Arguments for Zoos

By bringing people and animals together, zoos educate the public and foster an appreciation of other species.

Zoos save endangered species by bringing them into a safe environment, where they are protected from poachers, habitat loss, starvation, and predators.

Many zoos have breeding programs for endangered species. In the wild, these individuals might have trouble finding mates and breeding, and species could become extinct.

Some zoos have conservation programs around the world that use the zoo's expertise and funding to help protect wildlife against poaching and other threats.

Reputable zoos accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums are held to high standards for the treatment of their resident animals. According to AZA, its accreditation guarantees that the organization has undergone strict evaluation by recognized experts to ensure the highest standards of "animal management and care, including living environments, social groupings, health, and nutrition."

A good zoo provides an enriched habitat in which the animals are never bored, are well cared for, and have plenty of space.

Seeing an animal in person is a much more personal and more memorable experience than seeing that animal in a nature documentary and is more likely to foster an empathetic attitude toward animals.

Some zoos help rehabilitate wildlife and take in exotic pets that people no longer want or are no longer able to care for.

Both accredited and unaccredited animal exhibitors are regulated by the federal Animal Welfare Act, which establishes standards for animal care.

Arguments Against Zoos

From an animal rights standpoint, humans do not have a right to breed, capture, and confine other animals-even if those species are endangered. Being a member of an endangered species doesn't mean the individual animals should be afforded fewer rights.

Animals in captivity suffer from boredom, stress, and confinement. No pen-no matter how humane-or drive-through safari can compare to the freedom of the wild.

Intergenerational bonds are broken when individuals are sold or traded to other zoos.

Baby animals bring in visitors and money, but this incentive to breed new baby animals leads to overpopulation. Surplus animals are sold not only to other zoos, but also to circuses and hunting facilities. Some zoos simply kill their surplus animals outright.

Some captive breeding programs do not release animals back into the wild. The offspring may be forever part of the chain of zoos, circuses, and petting zoos.

Removing individual specimens from the wild further endangers the wild population because the remaining individuals will be less genetically diverse and may have greater difficulty finding mates. Maintaining species diversity within captive breeding facilities is also a challenge.

If people want to see wild animals in real life, they can observe wildlife in the wild or visit a sanctuary. (A true sanctuary does not buy, sell, or breed animals, but instead takes in unwanted exotic pets, surplus animals from zoos, or injured wildlife that can no longer survive in the wild.)

The federal Animal Welfare Act establishes only the most minimal standards for cage size, shelter, health care, ventilation, fencing, food, and water. For example, enclosures must provide "sufficient space to allow each animal to make normal postural and social adjustments with adequate freedom of movement. Inadequate space may be indicated by evidence of malnutrition, poor condition, debility, stress, or abnormal behavior patterns." Violations often result in a slap on the wrist and the exhibitor is given a deadline to correct the violation. Even a long history of inadequate care and AWA violations, such as the history of Tony the Truck Stop Tiger, does not necessarily ensure abused animals will be freed.

Animals sometimes escape their enclosures, endangering themselves as well as people. Likewise, people ignore warnings or accidentally get too close to animals, leading to horrific outcomes. For example, Harambe, a 17-year-old western lowland gorilla, was shot in 2016 when a toddler accidentally fell into his enclosure at the Cincinnati Zoo. While the child survived and was not badly injured, the gorilla was killed outright.

Petting zoos have been linked with numerous incidents of diseases including E. coli infection, cryptosporidiosis, salmonellosis, and dermatomycosis (ringworm).

The Last Word on Zoos

In making a case for or against zoos, both sides argue that they're saving animals. Whether or not zoos benefit the animal community, they certainly do make money. As long as there is demand for them, zoos will continue to exist.

Since zoos are likely an inevitability, the best way to move forward is to ensure that zoo conditions are the best possible for the animals that live in captivity and that individuals who violate animal care health and safety sanctions are not only duly punished but denied any future access to animals.

One day we may look back at zoos and marvel at their barbarity. Or, one day we may look back at zoos and be grateful for the species they saved from extinction. Of these two scenarios, only time will tell.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Are Zoos Ethical? Arguments for and Against Keeping Animals in Zoos

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Zoos, if done right, could be a good thing for the animals and the public-yet many so-called zoos get it terribly wrong.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi! I've found an article which supports our team.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
have written before about the importance of zoos and the role they have to play in the world for conservation and education. They are in particularly important for endangered species - many animals are critically endangered in the wild and may go extinct there soon but are going strong in zoos. Many others are already extinct in the wild and only survive because of populations kept going in captivity. Even those critical of zoos often recognise this role and that it is better to have species preserved somewhere than be lost for all time. However, even species that are common can come under severe threat very quickly or without people realising.

Take the ring-tailed lemur of Madagascar for example. This animal is almost ubiquitous in zoos and few do not keep groups of these pretty primates as they breed well in captivity and the public are fond of them. However, despite their high numbers in collections around the world, they are under severe threat in the wild. A recent survey suggested that a huge 95% of the wild populations have been lost since 2000. This is clearly catastrophic and also means that the remaining individuals are greatly at risk. One bad year or a new disease could wipe out those that are left, and small and fragmented populations will be vulnerable to inbreeding so even a single loss can be keenly felt.

Such trends are not isolated. Giraffe are another species that are very common in zoos and unlike the lemurs are very widespread being found in numerous countries across much of sub-Saharan Africa. Anyone who has been on safari in Kenya, Tanzania, South Africa or plenty of other countries will have had no trouble in seeing plenty of them in the wild and yet giraffe populations have gone down by a third in the last thirty years. While less dramatic than the lemurs, this is obviously a major loss and again, whole populations (which some scientists think are in fact unique species) are on the verge of extinction.

A baby Rothschild giraffe at Chester Zoo in Chester. Some biologists consider this a separate species of giraffe and with only 1500 alive in the wild the captive population is a critical resource to their long term survival.

Photograph: Paul Ellis/AFP/Getty Images

Cheetahs too, despite protection and efforts to support populations, are showing a major decline in their wild populations, primates as a whole are doing badly (it is suggested some 60% of species are at risk) and that's on top of the major crisis facing huge numbers of amphibian species. Many other species are probably facing sudden drops in numbers and some estimates are particularly worrying with suggestions that 50% of species could be gone at the end of this century. Conservationists struggle to monitor even species known to be vulnerable, so it is easy to see why common species might be overlooked especially if the perception is that they are not at risk because there are large numbers. Even a dramatic local loss might be overlooked on the assumption they are populous elsewhere but clearly that's not always the case.

Ongoing and future issues from climate change (more extreme weather events, as well as things like overall warming and sea level changes) can have dramatic and unexpected effects on wildlife and we will likely struggle to predict which might be at risk. The numbers of species showing major losses, and the number that we overlook until things are already critical is only likely to rise. A new study suggests that climate change has already harmed over half of all mammal species on the endangered species list for example, and that is only likely to increase as more species are put under pressure from climate change and other environmental pressures.

In short, while zoos do provide a critical reservoir for endangered species, many other animals may yet become endangered very soon, or already are and we don't know about it. Those species that are held in zoos are already protected from any such events and trends. In may not be long until ring tailed lemurs and many other species are only held in zoos and their loss from the world would be otherwise both tragic and irreversible.

There will, I suspect, always be resistance to the arguments for keeping animals in captivity and I will not defend those bad zoos desperately in need of improvement or closure. But if we wish to keep any real measure of biodiversity on the planet, we may lean on zoos and aquaria far more than many realise. If even common and popular species can lose a huge percentage of their populations in a few years, it may be too late to save them with even the best breeding programs or conservation efforts in the wild. As seen here, too often we do not even know a species is under threat until their numbers have crashed to dangerously low levels and this is a trend that is only likely to continue.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The ongoing extinction crises shows that zoos are needed - even for common species

# data[].attributes.body
Hi! I've found a video .
https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2015/mar/24/animal-cruelty-waza-video-zoos-abuse-video
Here is another article.
http://www.veganpeace.com/animal_cruelty/zoos.htm

# data[].attributes.body
Hi!I have found an article that supports us

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
According to Debate.org, 59 percent of respondents are against zoos. It seems that people consider zoos to be inhumane for animals; however, I believe that this belief is misguided.

Common misconceptions of animals in zoos are that they are unhappy and being held against their will, or that they are being treated poorly. Although not every zoo in the world lives up to the highest standards of care, there are some public zoos, such as the Minnesota Zoo, which do take great care of their animals. In fact, most of today's modern zoos enable the animals to full habitats with more than enough space for them to roam freely and be happy.

As Satch Krantz, director of Riverbank Zoo and Garden stated, "You've got to make sure you have animals that are not just physically healthy, but mentally healthy, moving around during the day and doing things in a natural way."

The Foundation for Biomedical Research reports that by having some animals in captivity, we can study and research different characteristics and find new ways in which we can help these animals survive in the wild more efficiently.

Dr. Robin Ganzert, CEO of the American Humane Association stated, "Today's zoos and aquariums are uniquely positioned to combat those evolving threats." These animals are facing natural, predatorial, climate threats, and many more. While being in the care of the zoos, they can be observed and ways to prevent these threats help them overall in the long run.

Zoos are not just there for the pleasure of the public, they help with the breeding of endangered species. A good example of this ecological benefit is the Bronx Zoo in New York, which led one of the earliest captive breeding and reintroduction efforts of the American Bison. Furthermore, zoos also help educate the people who visit them. The Association of Zoos and Aquariums credited zoos with educating over millions of visitors about the animals, their habitats, and related conservation issues.

As zookeeping has evolved, animals are increasingly kept in more than adequate conditions and are treated with great respect, not just at the Minnesota Zoo, but many other zoos as well.

As Dr. Dave Hone stated, "It is perfectly possible to keep animals in a zoo or wildlife park and for them to have a quality of life as high or higher than in the wild." Overall the benefits that zoos provide to animals do more good than harm and are continuing to do so today.
Jared Zacharias Cambridge

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
According to Debate.org, 59 percent of respondents are against zoos. It seems that people consider zoos to be inhumane for animals; however, I believe that this belief is misguided. Common misconceptions of animals in zoos are that they are unhappy and being held against their will, or that they are being treated poorly.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi! I have found another article that furthermore supports our point.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Debate.org is a dynamic social community where you can voice your opinion on today's hottest issues.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi everyone! I have found an article that proves that zoos are cruel.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Almost all of us grow up with fond memories of visiting the zoo with our parents, grandparents or friends. Where else do you get to see those amazing, large elephants? Or these cute monkeys climbing and playing? Or those giraffes with their long necks? Unless you are able to afford a trip to Kenya, the zoo is the only place where you can see these amazing animals up close.

However, I wouldn't have listed Zoos under Animal Cruelty, if I didn't think that they were bad for the animals that live in them.

Enclosures The major problem with zoos is that the animals who live there are kept in enclosures that don't allow them to live their lives in a natural way. No matter how big some zoos try to make the enclosures, no matter how many branches they put in them, no matter how beautiful they make the background paintings on the wall, they don't compare with the natural habitat the animals were meant to be in. Zoo animals have to spend day after day, week after week, year after year in the exact same enclosure. This makes their lives very monotonous.

Elephants in the wild, are used to traveling many miles a day in herds of about ten related adults and their offspring. They are very social animals.

In zoos, elephants are usually kept in pairs or even isolated. Their enclosures are incredibly small, compared to what they are used to in the wild. Elephants often show many signs of being stressed out or bored, like engaging in repetitive movements.

It is no surprise that elephants don't do well in zoos at all. The average lifespan of zoo elephants is about 16-18 years, while wild elephants can live 50-70 years.

Stress behaviors
It's not always easy to recognize stress behaviors, since most of us only know these wild animals from seeing them in zoos. Stress behaviors can include repetative movements, pacing back and forth, head bobbing, rocking, repeatedly retracing their steps, sitting motionless or biting the bars of their enclosure or themselves.
The bored cheetah on the right is pacing back and forth, a very common stress behavior in zoo animals.

Baby orangutan Mahal biting the bars of his enclosure.
He died from pneumonia 4 years later, at the age of 5.

Abnormal Repetitive Behavior The scientific term for repetitive behaviors in captive animals is "Abnormal Repetitive Behavior" also know as ARB. This covers all the strange-looking repetitive behaviors we can recognize in captive animals, like zoo animals. These behaviors are caused by conditions like depression, boredom and psychoses. Some zoos actually give anti-depressants or tranquillizers to control the behavior problems of some of their animals.

The clip on the right shows an elephant at the Milwaukee County Zoo in the summer. She is swaying her trunk back and forth, which is a sign of stress. This stress behavior is difficult to recognize, which is obvious at the end of the clip when you hear a woman say: "if I could just do that all day, man that would be pretty sweet.". I also overheard a little girl ask her mother what the elephant was doing. Her mother answered that the elephant was "dancing".

The clip on the left shows an elephant at the Milwaukee County Zoo in the winter. She spends almost the entire day in this small, concrete enclosure and is showing obvious signs of stress. I would walk away from the elephants to come back an hour later, and she would still be performing these same repetitive movements.

Zoo: Collection of Unhappy Animals
What makes life so difficult for zoo animals is that they hardly have any privacy and lack mental stimulation and physical exercise. Even though you might think that zoo animals would get used to a life in captivity, they really don't. Even animals that are bred in zoos still retain their natural instincts after many generations of captive breeding.
Animals like polar bears or felines are used to hunting; this habit is replaced by the zoo with regular feedings. Most animals kept in zoos would naturally roam for tens of miles a day.

Once you start recognizing the signs of stress in zoo animals and understand how sad and boring their lives must be, zoos will look completely different to you.

Polar bear at a zoo.

Conservation
Zoos claim to help with conservation. However, hardly any zoo registers their animals on an international species database and most zoo animals are not endangered at all.
Even though there are thousands of endangered species, zoos have only been able to return about 16 species to the wild with varying level of success. Most zoo animals released in the wild don't survive. This is because zoos don't provide the right environment for a successful captive breeding project. The animals would need to live in habitats resembling their natural ones, especially in terms of climate and fauna. The animals would also need to be raised with minimal human contact and in populations large enough to provide a natural social balance and a suitable gene pool.

Breeding Programs
Zoos spend huge amounts of money on their breeding programs, even though breeding animals in captivity isn't the best way to help in conservation. It is at least 50 times more expensive to maintain elephants in zoos than to protect equivalent numbers of elephants in the wild. Using the money for conservation programs in the wild - by creating more protected reserves for instance - will not only allow the animals to live in their natural habitat, it also helps balance whole eco-systems.
Zoos main interest in breeding programs, is to attract visitors, who love to see baby animals.

Surplus Animals
Surplus animals are the unwanted animals for whom there is no more space, when zoos have bred yet another cute little baby to attract visitors. They can even be the cute babies themselves when they've stopped being cute at the end of the season. Zoos have a systematic "overproduction" of animals. These surplus animals are either killed - and sometimes fed to their fellow zoo habitants - or sold to other zoos or dealers.
Selling animals is a profitable way for zoos to dispose of them. Dealers will sell them to hunting ranches, pet shops, circuses, the exotic meat industry, and research facilities. Surplus animals are also found for sale on the internet.

Teaching Tool Zoos are considered a great teaching tool where children and adults can learn a lot about wild animals. Zoos however, hardly teach you anything about how wild animals live and behave in nature. Just compare the picture of the hippopotamuses in nature (to the right) with the one at the zoo (below). Zoos are not much more than a collection of sad and exploited animals and are giving a very bad example about how we should treat these fellow occupants of our Earth.

What is the Alternative?
So if we shouldn't visit zoos, how else can we learn about these amazing animals?
Animals should be observed in their natural habitat, where they are living the life that they were meant to live. If we can't afford to visit them, we can learn about these amazing wild animals by watching wildlife videos, television programs or by reading about them on the internet or in books and magazines. It is simply not right to enjoy seeing these animals while they are living a horribly sad life.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Almost all of us grow up with fond memories of visiting the zoo with our parents, grandparents or friends. Where else do you get to see those amazing, large elephants? Or these cute monkeys climbing and playing? Or those giraffes with their long necks?

# data[].attributes.body
Hello everyone! This is Mr Luke!

This week's topic:
'Zoos Are Cruel and All The Animals Should Be Released Into The Wild'

-----
Today we'll continue our discussion on whether or not we agree with zoos and again debate both arguments of freeing animals in captivity and releasing them into the wild.

Please be prepared today and continue to post relevant news material that we can use in our class debates.  We'll talk more about this today.

See you all at 5:30!

-Mr Luke

# data[].attributes.body
-19
~More than a Class in the Classroom~
Avatar of Dorothy
Dorothy
 + 2
●
2d

# data[].attributes.body
This week's topic is about should animals be released in the wilds.

# data[].attributes.body
Hello!I am Amanda. I would like to share my ideas from my lessons on this wall. See you later soon!

# data[].attributes.body
Hi ! I am Josie. I want to share all my interesting lesson to all of you on this wall. See you soon!

# data[].attributes.body
Zoos are cruel.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi! It’s me again! Maybe you recognise me from my before padlets. I would like to share my thoughts and feelings with you again soon.

# data[].attributes.body
By maintaining a friendly wall for all users, please follow these rules.
- Stay safe - protect your privacy and respect the privacy of others
- No abusive, offensive or aggressive postings
- No insults or personal attacks
- No foul language
- No trolling
- No inappropriate or illegal material
- No crossposting
- No forum spamming
- No defamatory comments
- Avoid using jargon, abbreviations or "text talk"

# data[].attributes.body
Hi everyone, I am Ms Dorothy.
This wall is for all of you to share your feelings, experiences, comments and anything related to the topics we discussed in class.