Discussion Questions - Essay Example

Discussion Questions Order No. 266476 No. of pages: 2 Premium 6530 Question Motorcycle owners For centuries together everyone are well aware that noise has always been a safety hazard. Noise is also a kind of pollution and it has been scientifically proved through consistent research that noise shortens life. Noise can be defined as any sound that is too loud and unpleasant. Statistics show that fatal crashes for motor cycles “are higher at 75.19 per 100,000 registered vehicles – four times higher than for cars.

United States Department of Transportation. (1994 – 2006)Considering all the above elements, it is but evident that mufflers should be used in order to cater to the safety of others. Though some people are of the opinion that mufflers are not a safety hazard, the majority think that they are life threatening if removed. Therefore the law is right in slapping heavy fines on people who remove their mufflers while riding their bikes.Question 2 - BillboardsProperty is defined as "ones exclusive right to possess, use, and dispose of a thing" . . .

"as well as the object, benefit, or prerogative which constitutes the subject matter of that right."( Barrons Law Dictionary (2nd ed. 1984) Based on this definition, the right to use the land rests with the owner, in this case the farmers who are free to utilize their property in any way they find useful or profitable. But the group demanding a halt to putting up of billboards may be seen to be indulging in “constitutive rhetoric about rural people, places….” (Pruit.R.Lisa2006).; Their actions maybe motivated more by nostalgia for the idyllic, bucolic image of a farmer’s life and land, while failing to take into consideration his financial and economic constraints.

If the billboard assures him guaranteed annual returns which may subsist his livelihood, the farmers are free to allow their land to be used in ways they deem fit. The decision may ultimately be influenced by the legal rhetoric about rural spaces, but in most cases law and its caretakers are far behind reality, holding onto outdated notions of a rural community.Question 3 – Dress Code at Restaurants Restaurants which prohibit people from their premises, in the presence of clothing deemed unfit by the establishment are merely resorting to the use of Sumptuary Laws, which were traditionally used to reinforce social class system through certain restrictions on ways of dressing and eating.

(Ribeiro, Aileen: Dress and Morality2003). Restaurants are engaged in the business of creating an illusion of a higher purpose of reality and it is their avowed aim to keep up the pretense at any cost. The owner of the restaurant has the right to take all steps necessary to maintain the ambience and feel of the establishment. Thus when Disney barred people with tattoos from their workforce they were merely adhering to their manual of dress codes, and were in no way impinging on the rights of the individual.

But to make a concept such as dress code legally binding may be stretching the issue beyond the bounds of reasonable debate, since grooming is the prerogative of an individual.Question 4 – Beach FrontOwners of a beach front property, though they own the premises on which the house is built do not own the beach in front of it according to the law. The beach is a public place and an amenity for the whole public to enjoy. According to the law of the government any public property cannot be owned by a civilian and hence he has no rights to exercise his power over the beach in front of his house because it is a public place which can be made use of by any civilian.

ReferencesPruitt, Lisa R. Rural Rhetoric. Connecticut Law Review, Vol. 39, No. 1, 2006 ; UC Davis Legal Studies Research Paper No. 77.Ribeiro, Aileen: Dress and Morality, Berg Publishers 2003, ISBN 185973782X, p. 12-16Nation’s Restaurant News, March 16,1992COPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage LearningDress codes or discrimination? Operators have right to set tone .http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3190/is_n11_v26?pnum=2&opg=12051905&tag=artBody;col1LAW REVIEWhttp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?

abstract_id=897818"Vehicles Involved in Fatal Crashes, 1994–2006 - State : USA". Fatality Analysis Reporting System. United States Department of Transportation. Retrieved on 2007-11-12.