PART ONE: Read Case 4-1: Doe v. United States Sec U.S. District Court For the Northern District of California. This case is provided in Chapter 4 of your textbook.

Then, respond to the Discussion Questions.

Critical Thinking: As we see again and again, the meaning of key words will often push a decision in a particular direction. How could the distinction between subpoenas requesting identity and those requesting content be made more clear in this case?

Ethical Decision Making: Do you believe it is ethical to engage in anonymous online postings that are critical of others and/or their organizations?

If so, is the golden rule obsolete? In others words, if you are okay with anonymous postings about others, would you be okay if someone anonymously criticized you online?

PART TWO: Read Case 4-3: Northwestern University and College Athletes Player Association (CAPA). This case is provided in Chapter 4 of your textbook.

Then, respond to the Discussion Questions.

Critical Thinking: There is extensive listing in this decision of the various aspects of the student athlete's life that are controlled by the coaching staff. What is the purpose of that listing as justification for the eventual decision?

Ethical Decision Making: One of the groups of stakeholders who are often ignored in an ethical decision are future generations.

Those of us alive now do not know the names of future generations, have by definition never met them, and consequently have a difficult time considering them relevant when we make a decision even when these people are going to be affected in major ways by the decision.

What groups of people in future generations will be affected by this decision? How will they be affected?