Case study analysis

Case Analysis Instructions

In evaluating your case analyses, instructors will apply the Case Analysis Grading Rubric. Each case analysis should be a 5–7 pages and follow the current APA guidelines. Title page and reference page ARE INCLUDED IN THE PAGE COUNT and current APA formatting is required. DUE FRIDAY 9/21/18

I copied and pasted the case you have to read to do the analysis on. Its bolded.

The basic guidelines for analyzing ethical case are as follows:

1. Issues

a. What are the major moral or ethical issues raised by the case?

b. What are the major factual issues raised by the case?

c. What are the major conceptual issues raised by this case?

d. Who are the major stakeholders in this case?

e. How are the issues in this case related to making ethical decisions?

2. Options

a. What are the major views on the conceptual issues raised by this case?

b. What are the main alternative actions or policies that might be followed in responding to the ethical issues in this case?

c. What facts are unknown or disputed that might be relevant to deciding this case (may require research to determine some facts)?

3. Ethical Arguments

a. Determine which of the four moral standards (egoism, natural law, utilitarianism, and respect for persons) apply to this case.

b. Identify the moral principles that can be invoked to support a conclusion as to what ought to be done ethically in this case or similar cases.

c. Determine whether the different moral standards yield converging or diverging judgments about what ought to be done.

4. Decision or Conclusion

a. Decide which of the identified options you would recommend or judge to be the ethically best way to deal with the issue presented in this case based upon which option has the strongest ethical reasons behind it.

b. Determine how a critic of your position might try to argue against it using other ethical reasons, and present a rebuttal or counter-argument in defense of your judgment.

c. Include a scripture to support your decision.

The purpose of these reports is to give you a chance to work out your own view about the issues raised by each case and to practice the procedure for analyzing ethical dilemmas. It is important that you include biblical references to defend your stance.

HERE IS THE CASE YOU HAVE TO READ FIRST

CASE 5-5 Ladd v. Uecker and Milwaukee Brewers

Baseball Club

780 N.W.2d 216 (2010)

Uecker is the radio broadcaster for the Brewers. In June 2006, Uecker petitioned the Milwaukee County Circuit Court for an injunction against Ladd, alleging a six- or seven-year pattern of harassment. Around the same time, Ladd, a self-described “devoted fan,” was charged with felony stalking. The injunction petition hearing was held on July 3 and September 7, 2006. The court commissioner found probable cause and issued an injunction charge.

On September 8, 2008, Ladd filed a sprawling pro se complaint alleging that between June 1 and September 7, 2006, Uecker defamed her in the affidavit supporting the injunction petition; he and/or the Brewers published the allegedly defamatory affidavit to a website called thesmokinggun.com; the Brewers posted on their website a defamatory article regarding her removal from a spring training game in Maryvale, Arizona; and a claim for “false light invasion of privacy” for, among other things, making and republishing false, defamatory statements and photographing her in the stands at various baseball stadiums.

Ladd’s September 8, 2008, complaint alleges that Uecker defamed her: (1) in the affidavit in support of his petition for the harassment injunction; (2) by publishing the affidavit to thesmokinggun.com; (3) during the two-day injunction hearing; and (4) in a media interview after the first day of the hearing. Distilled to its essence, Ladd’s claim is that the false depiction of her as a stalker has damaged her personal and professional reputations. Except for the continued injunc- tion hearing on September 7, 2006, however, all of these incidents occurred more than two years before Ladd filed her complaint.

Ladd also argues that, although Uecker and/or the Brewers allegedly posted his affidavit to thesmokinggun.com on June 2, 2006, the pur- portedly defamatory statements still can be accessed on the Internet today. She contends that the information therefore is republished each time someone visits that website or others to which the material has found its way, thus renewing her cause of action.

Ladd asserts, however, that Uecker’s statements lost their absolute privilege through “excessive publication” on the Internet, because the “stalker label” “defame[ed][her] as a criminal” and because Uecker defamed her to law enforcement officials.

Ladd’s complaints that the Brewers defamed her likewise fail. The Brewers advised Ladd in December 2006 that, in light of the harassment injunc- tion, they would deny her entrance to the spring training facility in March 2007 should she purchase a ticket. Upon finding her in the stands, they were entitled to have her removed. As Ladd’s ticket indicates, a ticket of admission to a place of amusement is simply a license to view a performance that the owner or proprietor may revoke at will.

Ladd included a photocopy of her ticket as an exhibit, evidently to show she had a right to be at the game. The ticket reads: “The license granted by this ticket to enter the Club baseball game is revocable.”

Ladd then directs us to an allegedly defamatory March 20, 2007, arti- cle in the Brewers’ online news archive about the Maryvale incident. Assuming, as Ladd contends, that the Brewers posted the story there, and accepting simply for argument’s sake that the article is defama- tory, this claim also fails. Before filing suit, Ladd did not give written notice to the Brewers providing them “a reasonable opportunity to correct the libelous matter.”

Ladd alleges that the Brewers took photographs of her in the stands at baseball parks and disseminated her “mug shot” and information about the injunction and the spring training incident. None of these involved private places, using her likeness for advertising or trade, or depictions of nudity. Further, they are matters of public record.

Case Study Analysis Grading Rubric

Criteria	Levels of Achievement
Content	Advanced	Proficient	Developing	Not present
Reflection 15 points	14 to 15 points Deep insights and critical thinking are displayed. Clear application of course concepts is made to personal situations.	13 points Insights and deep thinking are displayed. Application of course concepts is made to personal situations.	1 to 12 points Superficial thinking and insights are displayed. Little application of course concepts is made.	0 points No application to the concepts made.
Content 20 points	18 to 20 points All topics are thoroughly addressed and/or all questions are answered. Includes 2 or more scriptures to support statements. Paper is 5 to 7 pages.	17 points All or most topics are generally, but not comprehensively addressed and all or most questions were answered. Includes 1 scripture to support statements. Paper is 5 to 7 pages.	1 to 16 points Topics and/or questions were not addressed satisfactorily. Includes 1 scripture to support statements. Paper is less than 5 pages.	0 points Topics and/or question not addressed. Does not include scripture to support statements. Paper is less than 5 pages
Structure	Advanced	Proficient	Developing	Not present
Sources 5 points	5 points All sources (information and graphics) are accurately documented in the desired format. Sources are listed in a reference page in current APA format.	4 points All sources (information and graphics) are accurately documented, but some are not in the desired format. Sources are listed in a reference page in current APA format.	1 to 3 points Sources are not accurately documented or formatted. Sources are listed in reference page but not in current APA format.	0 points Sources are not accurately documented or formatted throughout the assignment. No reference page.
Mechanics 10 points	10 points Less than 2 current APA formatting, grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors are present. Title page is in current APA format.	8 to 9 points 3 to 5 current APA formatting, grammatical, spelling, or punctuation errors are present. Title page is in current APA format.	1 to 7 points More than 5 current APA formatting grammatical, spelling, or punctuation errors are present. Title page is not included or not in current APA format.	0 points Multiple grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors are present. Title page is not in current APA format.