In every legal case, there are at least two separate conclusions. The plaintiff believes that the court should rule one way, whereas the defendant thinks that the court should rule another. In Case 12-2, plaintiff Nemet provided one conclusion, but the court supported a conclusion more similar to Consumeraffairs.com’s conclusion. The court’s reasoning provides the answer for why the court reached its particular conclusion. The following questions address the court’s reasoning.
1. Identify the court’s conclusion in Case 12-2. Clue: Reread the final paragraph of the court’s decision.
2. What are the reasons the court provides to support this conclusion? Clue: Look at the court’s application of the Communications Decency Act.
3. To demonstrate the significance of primary ethical norms in court decisions such as this one, identify the ethical norm that would have reversed this decision. Clue: This norm is related to prioritizing the plaintiff’s rights over those of the defendant in cases such as Case 12-2.
