Scribd

EXHIBIT A

Case 2:11-cv-05413-DRH-ARL Document 13-1 Filed 03/12/12 Page 1 of 21 PageID #: 373

1

COMPENDIUM OF PLAGIARISM

1

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TODEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

ONLINE SOURCE

[That There is no doubt that] The U.S. SupremeCourt has held that non-verbal expression maysometimes be considered "speech" for thepurpose of receiving First Amendmentprotection. As a result, symbols, works of visualand written art, and even physical acts mayenjoy the protection of the First Amendment.The question courts ask in such cases is whetherthe non-verbal expression has sufficientelements of communication. Yet, even when theanswer is yes, the Supreme Court has been waryof giving generalized First Amendmentprotection to

all

non-verbal expression thatconveys a message; otherwise, such protectioncould conceivably legitimize harmful,destructive, or otherwise illegal acts motivatedby an expressive purpose. Spray painting graffition a street sign, for example, does not receiveFirst Amendment protection even when itconveys a clear and distinct message.pp. 2-3, ¶ 5The U.S. Supreme Court has held that non-verbal expression may sometimes be considered"speech" for the purpose of receiving FirstAmendment protection. As a result, symbols,works of visual and written art, and evenphysical acts may enjoy the protection of theFirst Amendment. The question courts ask insuch cases is whether the non-verbal expressionhas sufficient elements of communication. Yet,even when the answer is yes, the Supreme Courthas been wary of giving generalized FirstAmendment protection to

all

non-verbalexpression that conveys a message; otherwise,such protection could conceivably legitimizeharmful, destructive, or otherwise illegal actsmotivated by an expressive purpose. Spraypainting graffiti on a street sign, for example,does not receive First Amendment protectioneven when it conveys a clear and distinctmessage.http://www.tjcenter.org/ArtOnTrial/bodyart.html In the 1971 case of

Cohen v. California

, U. S.Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan IIsuccinctly summarized the inherent subjectivityof determining artistic merit when he stated,"one man's vulgarity is another's lyric."p. 3, ¶ 5In the 1971 case of

Cohen v. California

, U. S.Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan IIsuccinctly summarized the inherent subjectivityof determining artistic merit when he stated,"one man's vulgarity is another's lyric."http://www.tjcenter.org/ArtOnTrial/censor.html [The court should first note that C]contrary tothe perception of many, the First Amendmentdoes not guarantee the right to express whateverwe want, whenever we want. Rather, theContrary to the perception of many, the FirstAmendment does not guarantee the right toexpress whatever we want, whenever we want.Rather, the Constitution is only a limit on

1

Counsel for Defendants assembled this chart by performing a simple Google search of the

language in Plaintiff‟s Opposition. Several of these plagiarized sections were copied f

rom one of numerous potential online sources containing identical language. Only one source has beenselected for ease of reference. All potential

sources, however, predate Plaintiff‟s Opposition.

Typographical errors in the Opposition have not been corrected. Brackets indicate text added inthe Opposition. Strikethrough indicates text deleted from original source when imported into theOpposition.


Page | 2

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TODEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

ONLINE SOURCE

Constitution is only a limit on

governmental

actsof censorship. The First Amendment simplywould not be an issue, for example, if an ownerof a strictly private art gallery took down a work because of viewer complaints. Thus, the initialquery in any alleged violation of FirstAmendment rights is whether or not agovernmental authority is involved.[skipped next paragraph]

The Case:

Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation

[.]

p. 3, ¶ 6

governmental

acts of censorship. The FirstAmendment simply would not be an issue, forexample, if an owner of a strictly private artgallery took down a work because of viewercomplaints. Thus, the initial query in any allegedviolation of First Amendment rights is whetheror not a governmental authority is involved.Yet the distinction between a government censorand a private one is not always clear. Manyprivate entities receive governmental supportthrough funding and other means. With suchsupport often comes some degree of governmental oversight or control. Further,government agencies often hire privatecontractors to perform tasks, including manythat were traditionally within the exclusivepurview of government personnel. When anartist or any other person is censored by anostensibly private entity with links togovernment, courts must evaluate the degree andnature of the governmental nexus to determine if the First Amendment is implicated.

The Case:

Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation

http://www.tjcenter.org/ArtOnTrial/censor.html For many people, tattoos have importantcommemorative or even religious significance.Yet despite this communicative purpose, courtshave nonetheless upheld many state imposedrestrictions on body art. In these cases (none of which have been heard by the U.S. SupremeCourt), the restrictions typically apply to thetattoo artist, not to the person receiving thetattoo. The constitutional relevance of thisdistinction is outlined in the case summarybelow.

The Case: [of]

The State of SouthCarolina v. Ronald P. White

[.]In 1999, RonaldWhite, a tattoo artist in Florence, SouthCarolina, drew a tattoo on a man for a localtelevision news broadcast. The act was the firststep by Mr. White in his challenge to a SouthFor many people, tattoos have importantcommemorative or even religious significance.Yet despite this communicative purpose, courtshave nonetheless upheld many state imposedrestrictions on body art. In these cases (none of which have been heard by the U.S. SupremeCourt), the restrictions typically apply to thetattoo artist, not to the person receiving thetattoo. The constitutional relevance of thisdistinction is outlined in the case summarybelow.

The Case:

The State of South Carolina v. Ronald P. White

In 1999, Ronald White, a tattoo artist inFlorence, South Carolina, drew a tattoo on a


More From eriqgardner