When to Draw the Line: Navigating Ethics in IT Law | LawCrossing

Summary

Drawing the line between professional and personal lives is a challenge for many in the workplace today. The modern world is one of blurred boundaries, forcing people to make difficult decisions about when to “switch off” and when to respond to a business demand. It is this challenge which the article "It's So Hard to Draw That Line" seeks to address.


The article identifies five key areas in managing the balance between professional and personal lives. Firstly, it looks at the need to prioritize tasks and activities, highlighting the importance of setting healthy boundaries and firm priorities. Secondly, time management skills are examined, with a focus on allocating time effectively to ensure goals are met. Thirdly, the article covers how technology is both a blessing and a curse when it comes to blurring professional and personal lines. Fourthly, it is suggested that the use of vacations and other breaks can help to reset the balance. Finally, it looks at how understanding our own needs and behaviour can help manage the boundaries between the two.

In conclusion, while managing the line between professional and personal lives can be difficult in the highly connected world we live in, there are steps that we can take to help. Prioritizing tasks and activities, improving time management skills, recognizing technology's role, taking regular vacations and breaks, and understanding our own needs are all key strategies for effectively drawing the line. With these in place, it is possible to achieve a healthier professional-personal balance.
 

What is Line Drawing?

Line drawing is a process whereby a person can discern the line of reasoning taken by courts in order to make legal decisions. Legal professionals use line drawing as a way to piece together evidence and circumstances in order to determine what is legally binding and what is not. It is a process of deduction and weighing evidence to reach a conclusion. Courts often use a line drawing process to determine what facts are admissible in any given case. Line drawing requires the ability to assess a wide variety of factors, often taking into account various aspects of the law in making a decision.
 

The Problem with Drawing Lines

The difficulty with line drawing is that it is often difficult to determine a clear and unmistakable line of reasoning. The law is full of grey areas and it is easy to overlook important pieces of evidence or overlook the relevance of certain factors. It is not uncommon for different courts to come to very different conclusions on the same set of facts. Line drawing is not a perfect science, and hence legal practitioners must be prepared to defend their argument and reasoning before a court.
 

The Benefits of Line Drawing

Line drawing is an important part of legal practice as it allows lawyers to replicate the line of reasoning taken by courts in previous cases. This can give legal practitioners an insight into the mindset of the court and provide an idea of what may be accepted or rejected in a case. Although line drawing does not guarantee a favorable outcome, it does provide legal practitioners with some guidance in formulating a strategy.
 

Line Drawing in the Digital Age

With the rise of digital technologies, line drawing has become an increasingly important skill in legal practice. Laws are constantly being revised and amended, creating more complexity in legal proceedings. This complexity requires lawyers to be able to quickly and accurately draw lines to interpret the law. As more and more laws are amended, lawyers must be up to date with the latest developments in line drawing in order to effectively advise their clients.
 

The Value of Line Drawing

Line drawing is a valuable skill for legal practitioners. It allows them to interpret the law in an efficient and effective manner. Line drawing can also provide lawyers with a better understanding of the legal landscape and help them to make informed decisions. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, so too will the importance of lawyers' line drawing skills.

First, the facts: In 1961, the Fraternal Order of Eagles presented the state with a 6-foot granite monument in which the text of the commandments had been etched. The monument was installed in the company of 17 other memorials along a walkway between the Capitol and the Texas Supreme Court.

Van Orden, an atheist, found the monument offensive and its placement a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The state responded that the monument is no more unconstitutional than the prayers that open sessions of both Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Since 1990, three judicial circuits have rejected challenges to state-sanctioned displays of the commandments. Four circuits have ruled for the plaintiffs and ordered the monuments removed. In the Van Orden case, the District Court entered judgment for the state; the 5th Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court agreed to hear Van Orden's appeal.

Here was part of the exchange between the plaintiff's counsel and the justices:

Justice O'Connor: If the legislature itself can have its sessions opened with a prayer, can the legislature itself want to have the Ten Commandments posted within the legislative halls? Can it do that?

Mr. Chemerinsky: No, Your Honor, it can't post the Ten Commandments by itself because that would then be the government's endorsing expression for support for that message. It cannot be, Your Honor, that just because there is legislative prayer, that any religious message anywhere on government property would then be permissible.

Justice O'Connor: But it's so hard to draw that line. If the legislature can open its own sessions attended by the public with a prayer, you say it cannot, in the same building, display the Ten Commandments?

Mr. Chemerinsky: That's right, because the Ten Commandments really are different. They declare not only there is a God, but that God has proclaimed rules for behavior. The commandments come from sacred texts ... When you put sacred texts somewhere on government property, then the message is that government is endorsing ...

Justice Anthony Kennedy: This is a classic avert your eyes. If an atheist walked by, he can avert his eyes; he can think of something else.

Mr. Chemerinsky: I don't think so, Your Honor.

Justice Antonin Scalia: You know, I think probably 90 percent of the American people believe in the Ten Commandments, and I'll bet you that 85 percent of them couldn't tell you what the 10 are. And when somebody goes by that monument, I don't think they're studying each one of the commandments. It's a symbol of the fact that government derives its authority from God. And that is, it seems to me, an appropriate symbol to be on state grounds.

Mr. Chemerinsky: I disagree, Your Honor. For the state to put that symbol between its state capitol and the state Supreme Court is to convey a profound religious message.

Justice Scalia: It is a profound religious message, but it's a profound religious message believed in by the vast majority of the American people. And our traditions show that there is nothing wrong with the government's reflecting that. I mean, we're a tolerant society religiously, but just as the majority has to be tolerant of minority views in matters of religion, it seems to me that the minority has to be tolerant of the majority's ability to express its belief that government comes from God, which is what this is all about. As Justice Kennedy said, turn your eyes away if it's such a big deal to you.

Mr. Chemerinsky. I disagree, Your Honor, because this court has said that above all, the government can't make some feel like they're insiders and some like outsiders.

Justice Scalia: What about the opening of this court's session today, in a manner that has been used since John Marshall — God save this honorable court! Is that divisive because there are a lot of people who don't believe in God?

Mr. Chemerinsky: Your Honor, I think that you have to distinguish between minimal religious content and maximum religious content.

The give-and-take between counsel and the court continued for another hour, as the justices heard a companion case from Kentucky. No one summarized the cases any better than Justice O'Connor at the outset: "It's so hard to draw the line."

(Letters to Mr. Kilpatrick should be sent by e-mail to kilpatjj@aol.com.)

COPYRIGHT 2005 UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
This feature may not be reproduced or distributed electronically, in print or otherwise without the written permission of uclick and Universal Press Syndicate.