HomeFirst Things First
. . .
What is
plagiarism?
Who cares?
Why is plagiarism difficult to avoid?
Definite don'ts
What happens if you are accused?
How to Avoid Plagiarism
Use valid, credible sources for information
Take careful notes
Quoting, paraphrasing, and summarizing
Giving Credit
Papers
Presentations, websites, etc.
Citation styles
► Is it plagiarism?
(interactive game)
Copyright
What's the deal with the © ?
Is it copyright
infringement?
(interactive game)
|
Is it plagiarism?
1. You write a paper on the legalization of
marijuana for your high school Current Events class. You save that paper and hand it in to
satisfy the persuasive paper requirement in your English Composition 100F class here at
UMF. Is it plagiarism?
2. You are working on a computer slide show
presentation for your literature class. You want to make the point that Shakespeare’s
works have been plagiarized throughout the centuries. You capture a painting of
Shakespeare from the Web for your first slide.
Is it plagiarism?
3. In your computer slide show presentation about
Shakespeare’s works, you include a snippet of famous dialogue from Romeo and Juliet.
Is it plagiarism?
4. You decide the best way to get across your
point about Shakespeare’s works being plagiarized is to show some examples. You
include a video clip from the film West Side Story in your presentation.
Is it plagiarism?
5. Your professor says some interesting things in
today’s lecture on Plato. You decide to use her ideas to begin your paper.
Is it plagiarism?
6. Here’s an appropriate source
for a paper on cyberhate
speech.
Rothman, Jeniffer E.
“Freedom of Speech and True Threats.”
Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 25.1 (Fall
2001): 85 pp. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. 6410679. Mantor Lib., Farmington, ME. 10 Jun. 2002
<http://ehostvgw3.epnet.com>.
(This citation does not look exactly as it
should in your list of works cited. It should be double spaced with hanging indents. To
see proper format of citations, go to Citation styles.)
Rothman addresses the growth of
Internet hate speech:
“The law surrounding threats has gained recent attention from commentators after
decades of virtual anonymity and unaddressed confusion among the lower courts. The sudden
interest in threats has been sparked primarily by the proliferation of widely disseminated
Internet speech5” (Rothman 286).
You decide to use this quote as-is. Is it plagiarism?
7. You decide to use this passage from the introductory section of the
Rothman article:
You are a physician at a local Planned Parenthood clinic. As part of your job you perform
abortions. There have been protests outside the clinic and you have heard about the
murders of several doctors around the country who were killed because they performed
abortions. One day a colleague calls you and tells you that an anti-abortion group has put
up a website which lists the names and home addresses of doctors who perform abortions.
When you look at the website you find your name and address on the list along with strong
language accountable for your crimes against humanity. Some of the doctors’ names
have black lines through them. You recognize these names as people who have been murdered
by anti-abortion fanatics. Can you successfully sue the creators of the website for
threatening you and causing you severe emotional distress, or is this website protected by
the First Amendment?1 Now imagine yourself a woman in college. You hear
from a friend that a classmate has posted a story about you on the Internet with a
newsgroup called “sex stories.” You read the posting and find a gruesome and
detailed story of the narrator torturing and raping you. The story culminates in a
description of you being doused with kerosene and lit on fire. The posting uses your real
name. You are scared and call the police. Should your classmate be convicted of
threatening you?2 You attend a rally in support of a boycott of white-owned
stores whose owners will not hire African American employees. You are aware of several
violent acts against blacks who have ignored the boycott including the firing of shots
into the house of one boycott violator. The leader of the boycott speaks at the rally and
warns boycott violators that “their necks will be broken.” You had been
considering returning to some of the white-own stores but are frightened by the
leader’s words. Should the leader of the boycott be arrested for threatening boycott
violators or is his speech protected by the First Amendment?3 (Rothman 284-285)
Is it plagiarism?
8. You read this passage in the Rothman article:
This article proposes a new test for determining what is a true threat. The reasonable
speaker/listener test, adopted by a majority of circuits, is useful but incomplete. I add
two additional elements to my test: (1) a subjective intent prong which requires the
prosecution or plaintiff to prove that the speaker purposely, knowingly, or recklessly
intimidated, frightened, or coerced the target; and (2) an actor prong which requires
proof that the speaker explicitly or implicitly suggest that he or his co-conspirators
will be the ones to carry out the threat. In addition, I develop in more detail the
factors that a fact-finder should consider when applying the reasonable listener prong.
The addition of the actor prong is wholly novel and has not been discussed by
courts or scholars to date.18 This prong is crucial to my test, and
crucial to the protection of speech under any test for determining whether a true threat
has been made. By requiring that there be, at the very least, some implication that the
speaker or his associates will be the ones to carry out the threat, greater latitude is
given to speakers to use, without fear of punishment, the strong language that the First
Amendment allows. (Rothman 289)
You decide to use this concept in your paper. You write the following:
Instead of relying on the reaction of the victim, why not look at the intent of the
perpetrator? If the speaker clearly intended to intimidate the victim, suggesting that the
speaker him/herself or his/her cronies will commit violence against the victim, then the
speech is not protected.
Is it plagiarism?
9. You use the same passage in a different way.
This article proposes a new test for determining what is a true threat. The reasonable
speaker/listener test, adopted by a majority of circuits, is useful but incomplete. I add
two additional elements to my test: (1) a subjective intent prong which requires the
prosecution or plaintiff to prove that the speaker purposely, knowingly, or recklessly
intimidated, frightened, or coerced the target; and (2) an actor prong which requires
proof that the speaker explicitly or implicitly suggest that he or his co-conspirators
will be the ones to carry out the threat. In addition, I develop in more detail the
factors that a fact-finder should consider when applying the reasonable listener prong.
The addition of the actor prong is wholly novel and has not been discussed by
courts or scholars to date. This prong is crucial to my test, and crucial to the
protection of speech under any test for determining whether a true threat has been made.
By requiring that there be, at the very least, some implication that the speaker or his
associates will be the ones to carry out the threat, greater latitude is given to speakers
to use, without fear of punishment, the strong language that the First Amendment allows.
(Rothman 289)
You decide to paraphrase the first part, eliminating the need to indent a long block
quote.
Rothman proposes a new test for deciding what is a true threat. The reasonable
speaker/listener test used in many circuit courts, is a good starting place, but is not
enough. He adds two additional elements to the test: (1) an intent prong that requires
that the prosecution prove that the speaker meant to intimidate, frighten, or coerce the
victim; and (2) an actor prong that requires proof that the accused speaker made it clear
that he was suggesting that he or his co-conspirators would carry out the threat (289).
Is it plagiarism?
|
