Tag Archives: social media

Daughter Sued Her Parents For Tuition Fees

I read this interesting story in the US about a daughter who successfully sued her parents for about $16,000 claiming that they are obligated to pay for her college tuitions. Here are some news reports that you can watch about it:

Now to my knowledge the parents had no lawyers whereas the daughter did. Since they lost the case, they refuse to abide to the court ruling and a blog was created where they are sharing their thoughts about it which you can see at:


This was kind of a fascinating story I thought about a family court system in general. At the same time, in many ways this is such a complex social issue where bias plays such a factor in the decision making process I feel where these kinds of cases should be more about exposing both sides of the story in a detailed fashion and then allowing the community to decide what they want to do as a result.

For example, I was reading the comments and the usual responses are either the girl should get a life as she is an adult or that the parents should suck it up as they brought her into this world and it’s their responsibility. A key thought for me is that a point is brought up on how we don’t know the full story. On one side of the fence some claim that maybe the girl is some kind of addict where these kinds of actions are feeding her addiction. Example, maybe like a drug addict that will lie, cheat and steal to get their next fix.

On the other side some claim the parents may have done extremely bad things to the daughter to warrant all this. Example, maybe the daughter was fending for herself as the parents went out partying all day. It makes me wonder, why is it so hard for people to know the whole story if it went through a court case? To me, that shows that either documentation accessibility is non practical for the average person or that the logistics of the process doesn’t focus enough in finding out the whole story.

In this case for example, I can imagine how one’s intent/motives wouldn’t be a primary category to investigate and document in court. However, in context of making a decision I would think it would play a huge role. Example, even if there was a law that says a person must be fed a certain amount of food a day, if in context we know that the person refused to eat anything unless they were provided with luxurious items such as caviar then it would be kind of silly.

One of those cases where having more real people weigh in on a situation and forcing both parties to openly give out the facts would be more beneficial than simply trying to apply a law in a generic way.

Is Social Media The Key To Changing A Justice System

Anyone else see all those incredible images of the #MillionsMarchNYC rally? If not, I saw this time-lapse video which shows just how much people got together in what appeared to be a peaceful protest over the recent court decisions with cases like the Eric Garner scenario.

I am obviously not from the US, but I was reading how so many of the big news outlets such as CNN wasn’t really covering this story at all. As a result, people were praising how they have social media to show things like this nowadays. Of course the common hearsay on why a big network wouldn’t really cover topics like this is because in many ways it would potentially affect its funding. Is social media really the key?

In many ways I would say yes. It kind of reminds me of that Kony / Invisible Children story a few years back. Essentially, it was a social media campaign that got the world’s attention to actually create tangible action. I think improving the Canadian justice system is the same and that everyone is lacking the ability to take all the hard cold facts that are available and presenting it in a fashion that will touch the majority of the public.

Instead, it seems like efforts are usually focused in say trying to get a seat or voice within the already tight knitted legal system. Like with that Kony example, I highly doubt trying to get a seat or voice in their country’s political system first would have been very effective. Maybe it’s a strange train of thought, but focusing on educating the general public first with the compelling stories that are available seems to make more sense.

I have often heard that a big reason why the justice system isn’t investigated into is that the general public simply has no interest in the issue. That sounds kind of wrong doesn’t it? Almost like saying a restaurant will continue to be unsanitary as the public doesn’t care enough about it to pressure an investigation. That business should be maintaining best practices regardless of a watchdog or public pressure in my opinion.

What would it take for the issues to be presented to light in Canada? I guess only time will tell as clearly what is currently being done simply maintains the current system and in many ways.

Canadian Media Law Harms Victims

I recently watched this documentary by the CBC’s The Fifth Estate. It was called “The Unmaking of Jian Ghomeshi” which is essentially diving into the whole sex assault scandal story and how people are accusing the CBC of covering it up.

A big point I got out of watching this is how Canadian media law in a way aids in the process of making sure that alleged victims are never heard. There is a part where it interviews a person named Jesse Brown who is a media critic and runs a site called Canada Land. According to this video, the victims went up to him about the whole story and he tried to investigate into it.

Some of the key responses Brown claims was that if he even thought of publishing the story or even ask further questions he would be sued. Even though the story involves a matter of public interest it’s like the law is being used in a way as a weapon to stop people from even investigating the issue.

I am no lawyer and so maybe “legally” a person can sue you all they want in these cases where it will be without success. However, I don’t think anyone would argue that the time and cost of going to court is intimidating to many to the point where it makes more sense to keep quiet. To me, that is fundamentally wrong when people are using it as a way to stop others from uncovering the truth as opposed to using it as a way to protect someone. Pretty much the same reason why I can’t fully share my experience.

It makes me believe that Canadian media law is extremely outdated to the point where it is no longer serving its original intent. In my opinion, there has to be a better categorization between allowing people to get their story out there without fear versus one making up accusations that can clearly be proven as false in a malicious way.

Example, to me if a girl screams out on the street that a certain person raped her then I would think it’s in the community’s best interest to take the allegation seriously and to investigate into it. Basically, everyone can work together to discover the truth.

If the guy can prove that the story is clearly false due to records of her being at a certain place at X time where she insists in ignoring it and continues to accuse him then that is a different story. Like there, that is what I would think media law was intended to protect.

The parts in this documentary about the alleged victims using twitter to partially expose the story in a way shows there is a need to give people the ability to tell their story without the fear that people with more money or power can simply silence them. I understand the flip side of the coin where if these people are simply lying then morally it is wrong to enable them to keep doing so. Like in this example though, how can you even start to investigate it if the media law works against them from doing so? These things need more ways to encourage public participation to discover the truth I think as opposed to lawyers using these kinds of laws as a weapon to stop it.