Johnson v. Stevens

Case Briefing

Parties: Steven Johnson (Defendant), Dana Stevens (Plaintiff)

Facts of Case: Steven Johnson, the defendant, argues that modern television makes you smarter. Dana Stevens, plaintiff, argues that Johnson is wrong (that he may have a misguided point or two, but that he is wrong).

Procedural History: The Court of General Opinion, sitting with a jury of modern society's ideologies, awarded plaintiff a judgement for the strength of her argument, and hence this appeal by Steven Johnson.

Legal Issue: Various points are discussed in the briefs, but to us the dominant and conspicuous inquiry in the case is, was the defendant, during the period of this transaction, an author of scientific theory, correct concerning his unusual thesis?

Reasoning/Analysis: The testimony of Ms. Stevens makes it manifest through credible evidence and strong counterpoints that Johnson was the author of false scientific theory in the full extent identified within his work, “Watching TV Makes You Smarter,” of the New York Times, and that her position, upon well-settled grounds of her feelings and opinion, required her to attest to the fact that Johnson is wrong via written rebuttal.


The services she rendered, in this instance, must be presumed to have been rendered in pursuance of her will, and for its performance she was met with support from the public.

Rule of Law: Society has heretofore shun the idea that television could be educational, thinking of it instead (generally) as a privilege, reward, waste of time, medium of entertainment. 

Holding: The judgement therefore must be that Dana Stevens is correct.