Over the past couple of years, America has been engaged in a public conversation about policing. After the scores of deaths at the hands of police officers, many people called on police departments to install body cameras on officers. Technology is changing policing in a number of other ways, including in how officers enforce minor infractions–like speeding.

With the advent of more sophisticated cameras, traffic enforcement officials have been relying on red light cameras to catch drivers who speed, run red lights, or break other traffic laws. There is some debate over whether or not a camera can be used to accuse someone of running a red light, and a general confusion about the effectiveness of such cameras. Despite the inconveniences these measures may cause drivers, their purpose is to keep drivers, pedestrians, bikers, and road workers safe.

Read on to learn more about the red light cameras, and the legislative battles they have led to.

History of the Red Light Camera

In 1993 New York City signed the first bill to install red light cameras, along with other so-called “automated enforcement” measures. The new technology only grew from there. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 421 communities in 23 states and the District of Columbia use red light cameras as of July 2017.

Red light cameras were introduced with the intention of making intersections safer. The thinking is that if someone sees a sign that says they will be photographed, they would be deterred from speeding.

How a Red Light Camera Operates

In certain places, there are cameras installed that trigger when a driver breaks certain rules, whether it is speeding or running a red light. Then a few weeks later they receive a letter in the mail that includes their picture and how much they owe. Drivers have three options when they receive one of these letters. First, they can say that they were guilty. Second, they can say that there is no contest. Regardless, the driver would mail in a check for the amount owed. The third option is to plead not guilty.

A Second Tool: Speeding Cameras

Another tool police departments are relying on to deter dangerous driving behavior: speeding cameras. There is evidence that speeding cameras in work zones can decrease accidents. The Illinois Center for Transportation released a report on the positive results of speed photo-radar enforcement (SPE) vans. The state of Illinois was seeing between 6,000 and 7,000 crashes a year in work zones. In crashes where there was an injury or fatality, 85 percent of the time it was the motorist, not the road worker, who suffered the injury or fatality. These staggering statistics prompted the state to begin using SPE vans in 2004.

The vans have a radar to monitor drivers’ speeds, which is shown on a monitor on top of the van. “If the driver does not reduce his or her speed, a camera captures the face of the driver and the front license plate. The SPE also records the speed of the violator, date, location, and time of the violation,” the report said.

Police officers stationed in the vans determine whether the vehicle was posing a serious threat. They then compare the photo that was taken of the speeding driver to the driver’s license database. If the cop sees that the pictures match, he or she may send out a ticket to the driver.

UIUC Professor Ray Benekohal, who conducted experiments on vehicles’ behavior in the presence of SPE vans, found promising results. In an interview with the Illinois Center for Transportation, Benekohal said:

SPE was very effective in reducing the average speed of cars and trucks, thus calming traffic and improving safety in work zones. The research found the reductions to be significant. When the SPE was present, on average, cars traveled 5.1-8.0 mph slower in the median lane and 4.3-7.7 mph slower in the shoulder lane.

Traffic vehicles, or SPE vans, are an effective option for increasing safety, for drivers, pedestrians, and anyone else on the roads.

Red Light Cameras and Public Safety

Red light cameras are also showing positive effects for public safety. Data compiled by American Traffic Solutions (ATS) has found a negative trend in deaths resulting from automobile accidents after red light cameras were installed.

The group’s data found that in areas where red camera lights had not been installed, there was an average of two deaths a day in 2015. Between 2011 and 2015, an average of 719 people died every year from an accident caused by someone running a red light. These crashes resulted in 126,000 injuries in 2014, and $390 million in damages was lost each month between 2011 and 2015.

When compared with cities that installed red light cameras, the results were very encouraging. Researchers saw a 21 percent decrease in crashes that resulted from a car running a red light. Conversely, in cities that eliminated their red light camera programs, the data found a 30 percent increase in fatal red light crashes.

Contested Tickets

While many states vary in terms of how their red light camera laws are worded, there are some common issues that arise. For one, if the ticket was mailed more than 30 days after the infraction took place, the ticket is invalid. In addition, if the camera or the camera’s warning sign were installed less than 60 days prior to the incident, the ticket is invalid. Sometimes the warning sign is not sufficiently clear or visible, and drivers are unaware the traffic stop has a camera installed. 

Different states have different standards for allowing drivers to contest a ticket that was issued as the result of a red light camera. For example, Delaware’s law allows for very few drivers to get out of paying their ticket or getting their charges dropped. The law states:

For a violation to occur, the front of a vehicle must be behind the stop line marked on the pavement at the time the traffic light signal turns red and must then continue into the intersection while the traffic light signal is red.

In an article in Delaware Online, Judge Susan Cline said, “The city does not have to prove intent, or even that you were the driver of the vehicle.” In Prices Corner, an unincorporated town near Wilmington where Cline works, in 63 out of 850 cases in 2013 involving red light cameras, the ticket was dismissed. The reasons that cases were dismissed included people running a red to avoid funeral processions or emergency vehicles, and being directed by road crews around traffic.

Baltimore officials recently said the city could expand its current red light traffic camera program. The city recently installed speed enforcement cameras near school zones and are planning to install red light cameras throughout the city. Baltimore Mayor Catherine Pugh said the cameras will generate more revenue for the city.

State-Level Legal Battles

Some states have debated the usefulness and legality of red light cameras altogether. In May 2017, the Florida Supreme Court announced that it would hear a case on whether or not the state should ban red light cameras altogether. The Tampa Bay Times reported:

The move comes after two appellate courts ruled that cameras in Oldsmar and the city of Aventura in Miami-Dade County can be used to ticket drivers. Those rulings, however, conflicted with one from the 4th District Court of Appeal, which shut down the city of Hollywood’s program in 2014.

Florida’s legislature is also trying to tackle the problem. In March 2017 the Florida House passed a bill to outlaw red light cameras. The bill is currently under consideration in the Florida Senate. The case for eliminating the cameras altogether lies in the cameras themselves. Usually when a cop sees someone speeding they pull them over and write them a ticket. Now it’s not the cop seeing people speed, it’s the cameras. When violators go to court, there is no one to confront in court because the “defendant” is the camera. 

Traffic attorneys have filed approximately 65 lawsuits against Florida communities that use cameras because of what many drivers feel are unfair practices. Essentially, many of the traffic attorneys have alleged that because many of the red light cameras are owned by third-party operatives, it is illegal to use them to issue someone a ticket. Law enforcement cannot be delegated to a third party under Florida Law. The court defined this in the 2014 case, City of Hollywood v. Arem:

In sum, Florida law does not grant the City any authority to delegate to a private third-party vendor the ability to issue uniform traffic citations. Only the City’s law enforcement officers and [traffic infraction enforcement officers] have the authority to issue such citations. The City also lacks the lawful authority to outsource to a third-party vendor the ability to make the initial review of the computer images of purported violations and then use its unfettered discretion to decide which images are sent to the TIEO, and which ones are not.

If Florida were to ban red light cameras, it would not be the first state to do so. In 2014, South Dakota passed House Bill 1100 which outlawed red light cameras in the state. The bill stated that it “prohibits the use of certain photo monitoring devices to detect red light violations. This bill prohibits the use of red light cameras.” Furthermore, House Bill 1122 protects South Dakotans from being charged by a red light camera in any state. House Bill 1122 reads:

No collection agency or company may contact a South Dakota resident by telephone, mail, electronic means, or any other manner, nor utilize the court system of South Dakota, in an effort to collect a fine derived from a speed camera or red light camera civil violation, or file a report with any credit bureau regarding the unpaid civil fine. No court of the State has jurisdiction to enforce a speeding camera or red light camera civil judgment against a resident.

South Dakota’s problems with red light cameras started in 2006, when a driver was ticketed $86 for allegedly running a red light. The driver, I.L. Weidermann, challenged the ticket, leading to four years of legal battles. The judge eventually agreed with Wiedermann, saying that Sioux Falls (the city in which he was ticketed) was imposing its own laws that were “less stringent” than the state laws regarding traffic by using the red light cameras. The judge also found that Weidermann was not given an opportunity to be heard, which was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. This was the beginning of the end for red light cameras in South Dakota.

Conclusion

Despite the legal battles and contested tickets, red light cameras do not appear as if they will be going away anytime soon. The tickets themselves are difficult to fight and, perhaps most importantly, red light cameras appear to have positive effects on driver safety. They discourage drivers from running red lights, and thus causing accidents that result in death or injury.

Anne Grae Martin

Anne Grae Martin is a member of the class of 2017 University of Delaware. She is majoring in English Professional Writing and minoring in French and Spanish. When she’s not writing for Law Street, Anne Grae loves doing yoga, cooking, and correcting her friends’ grammar mistakes. Contact Anne Grae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Red Light Cameras: Saving Lives or Infringing on Rights? appeared first on Law Street.

On July 7, Arkansas and Missouri became the first two states to ban the use of the pesticide dicamba. In the age-old struggle between farmers and weeds, dicamba is the newest weapon in a farmer’s arsenal. The way a lot of farming works these days is big companies, like Monsanto, genetically modify seeds so that they are resistant to certain pesticides, like dicamba. But the pesticide has ravaged acres of farmland, killing off crops that are not resistant to its fatal chemicals. In response, states are beginning to temporarily ban the use of dicamba. Read on to learn more about dicamba and the legal issues that have cropped up around its use: 

Seeds of the Conflict

Many farmers have begun planting dicamba-resistant seeds, particularly farmers in the Midwest. According to the Center for Biological Diversity, 1.5 million of the roughly 3 million acres of soybeans planted in the state are Monsanto’s dicamba-resistant soybeans.

While nearly half of soybean farms in Arkansas are full of dicamba-resistant seeds, more than half of them are full of seeds that are not resistant to the pesticide. This is where the problem begins. Dicamba began drifting into fields planted with non-resistant seeds, killing off many plants that were not genetically modified to withstand the pesticide. When this started happening many farmers took their complaints to the Arkansas State Plant Board.

The Plant Board is a state run entity whose mission is to provide “information and unbiased enforcement of laws and regulations” that have to do with agriculture in Arkansas. They received enough complaints that the state governments of Missouri and Arkansas had to take action. Both states have banned dicamba use between July 11 and November 7. The Arkansas ruling states:

Many other instances of exposure of non-target crops being exposed to dicamba have been reported and this situation poses a grave threat to the farm economy of Arkansas and therefore the public interest requires taking action to prevent unintentional exposure of non-target crops to dicamba. Therefore, the Board finds that there is imminent peril to the public health, safety and welfare that requires adoption of emergency regulations and that the regulation should take effect upon filing with the Secretary of State.

Missouri released a similar statement that stopped the sale or use of dicamba. Missouri’s ban, which includes any product with dicamba in it, will last longer than Arkansas’, lasting until December 1.

This federal action follows a years-long struggle between farmers and weeds, pesticides and plants–and even farmer and farmer.

What is Dicamba?

Dicamba is not a new pesticide. In fact, it was devised in 1958, cooked up by the chemical company BASF. And it is not the only pesticide that farmers use. Roundup, an incredibly toxic weed killer, was once a favorite of farmers. Seed companies manufactured genetically modified seeds that were “Roundup-ready,” and could withstand the toxic pesticides.

Roundup seemed like a good solution for a while. Rather than losing crops to weeds or having to go out and eliminate every weed by hand, Roundup would do the work for you. It was an easy solution, but it did not last long. Weeds began evolving, and developed resistance to Roundup. Thus, farmers began looking for new pesticides that paired with new genetically modified seeds.  

In the Arkansas government’s Emergency Rule, which temporarily bans the use of dicamba, it recognizes the benefits of pesticides. The rule states:

Pesticides are valuable to the State’s agricultural production and to the protection of man and the environment from insects, rodents, weeds and other forms of life which may be pests; but it is essential to the public health and welfare that they be regulated to prevent adverse effects on human life and the environment.

First Signs of Resistance

It all began with a weed called pigweed, a group of weeds which became resistant to most pesticides. Pigweed also spreads like wildfire. “You get one plant in your field, and that one plant can produce more than a million seeds. Many of the seeds become new plants that can choke your fields,” said Steve Inskeep of NPR. Some farmers would rip it from the ground when they saw it. Others resorted to spraying dicamba.

For the 2016 growing season, Monsanto released a new dicamba spray that was less prone to drifting. Old dicamba sprays would vaporize and spread to other farmers’ land. If it drifted to a farm full of non-resistant seeds, the farmer’s plants would wither and die.

The new drift-averse dicamba spray has not been approved by the EPA and Monsanto told farmers not to use other drift-prone sprays, due to the problems that arose from its use. 

Farmers were fined as much as $1,000 for using the illegal spray before the ban went into effect. A steep price, but when their entire yield is at risk of being killed by a weed, some farmers decided to cut their losses. According to The Progressive Farmer, “The Environmental Protection Agency has confirmed that it executed federal search warrants at several southeastern Missouri locations as part of an investigation into alleged misuse or misapplication of dicamba onto herbicide-tolerant soybeans and cotton.”

Drift is nothing new to farmers. Other pesticides have had these problems before. But in the past, farmers would just talk it out to settle the problem. With the onset of dicamba, farmers have taken their complaints to the state. 

Arkansas Bans Dicamba

Some farmers purchased dicamba-resistant seeds, but many others did not. Their crops are starting to die off at alarming rates, and it is believed that dicamba is largely to blame.

Many crops, including soybeans, cotton, and corn, die when they are exposed to dicamba. The leaves of the plants curl and pucker, leaving farmers with a loss on their investment.  

Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported:

As of noon Wednesday, the Plant Board, a division of the state Department of Agriculture, had received 551 complaints of damage to soybeans, cotton, vegetables and fruit, up from 25 complaints four weeks ago. The increasing numbers led [Governor Asa] Hutchinson to sign on to a 120-day emergency ban on the sale and use of dicamba.

Terry Walker, the Plant Board’s director, said in an interview with Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that the government had a right to protect the farmers who had not bought dicamba-resistant seeds and who were experiencing adverse effects because of other farmers who were using an illegal pesticide.

The Plant Board also requested an increase in fines. Their request was approved. Beginning on August 1, fines for farmers caught using dicamba will rise from $1,000 to $25,000.

A Pesticide Worth Killing For?

The main controversy surrounding dicamba has been the effect the pesticide has on crops. But one case escalated to the point of murder.

In 2016, farmers began noticing an increase in damages to crops that were not dicamba-resistant. More than 200,000 acres of fruits and vegetables, including soybeans, tomatoes, watermelon, and peaches, took a hit. In a year that was already one of the leanest since 2002, this extra damage was not a welcome sight.

Mike Wallace, a farmer in Arkansas, started noticing a decline in his yield. His crops were dying, and it looked like dicamba was to blame. After complaining to the Plant Board, Wallace took matters into his own hands. He called up Allan Curtis Jones, a 26-year-old farmer from Arbyrd, Missouri. The two argued over the phone and eventually met in person. The meeting, according to Modern Farmer, did not go well:

Wallace grabbed Jones by the arm during the argument, Jones pulled out a gun and shot the older man, who was unarmed. Jones’ cousin called 911 and deputies found Wallace dead by the side of the road when they arrived.

Jones was arraigned last November and was released on a $150,000 bail.

Is Dicamba Legal in Other States?

Dicamba is very toxic and thus highly regulated.

The EPA has approved a list of 34 states (including Arkansas and Missouri) where dicamba can be registered to be used on genetically engineered cotton and soybeans. The EPA has also approved a special strain of dicamba, Xtendimax, that can be used on genetically engineered cotton and soybeans.

Xtendimax “is designed to be the industry’s lowest volatility dicamba,” according to its manufacturer, meaning it is less likely to evaporate. The problem with other dicamba formulas was they would evaporate once sprayed, and float to nearby fields, some of which were not planted with dicamba-resistant seeds. This new formula, which still requires farmers to follow a list of precautions in order to ensure they are adhering to safe practices, was designed to combat the drifting problems many farmers were seeing.

Next Steps

For farmers in Arkansas and Missouri, the next steps will be to untangle the complaints, and to closely examine dicamba’s potential problems and opportunities. Bob Scott, professor and weed scientist at the University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service, recently told CropLife, “Going into the fall, we’re really going to have to look at drift complaints, categorize and narrow them down, and try to figure out what’s going on here to determine whether we can use this technology or not.”

Scott said that some farms that were following the rules were still being investigated because their neighbors reported what looked like dicamba-related damage. That could mean a variety of things. Perhaps the dicamba is drifting farther than farmers previously thought it could. Maybe the approved methods of dicamba use are not as safe as was once thought. Whatever the answer ends up being, a thorough investigation will likely be conducted in the coming months. 

Conclusion

Dicamba has led to a lose-lose situation for farmers in Arkansas and Missouri. The farmers who did not buy genetically modified seeds saw losses because their crops could not withstand the illegal use of dicamba. The farmers who did buy dicamba-resistant seeds are now barred from using the powerful pesticide because of the new Emergency Rule. Their options are limited. Some plausible options are they can either pull weeds by hand, try other pesticides, or hope that the weeds do not kill too many of their crops. For now, farmers in Arkansas and Missouri must resist using dicamba, unless they accept the hefty fine–or worse. 

Anne Grae Martin

Anne Grae Martin is a member of the class of 2017 University of Delaware. She is majoring in English Professional Writing and minoring in French and Spanish. When she’s not writing for Law Street, Anne Grae loves doing yoga, cooking, and correcting her friends’ grammar mistakes. Contact Anne Grae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dicamba: A Look at the “Deadly” Pesticide appeared first on Law Street.

When Upton Sinclair wrote “The Jungle,” he intended to show the harsh conditions of poor immigrants working in the meat packing factories of Chicago. Published in 1906, his book ended up being one of the earliest catalysts for American food regulation. People were revolted by the unregulated food industry and the awful truth behind where their meat came from.  Sinclair’s book led to a public outcry, and many called for more regulations for the food industry. And for good reason–throughout American history up until that point there had never been any serious attempts to regulate the food industry. 

We now live in an age of big farms and monoculture. It used to be that most of the food you ate was grown or raised fairly close to where you lived. As technology and jobs changed, and the demand for meat grew, food began to be produced on a larger scale. Read on to learn more about the changing food culture and the concept of “food sovereignty.” 

Eating Local?

During President Theodore Roosevelt’s tenure, the U.S. began regulating food and drugs produced in the country with the Pure Food and Drugs Act of 1906. This act prohibited “misbranded and adulterated foods, drinks, and drugs in interstate commerce.” This was regulated by the Bureau of Chemistry in the Department of Agriculture, which eventually became the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1930.

Today, food laws are still imperfect. But the American public is increasingly conscious of where and how food is produced. Debates regarding food production are happening all over the country. Most Americans eat three times a day. A 2011 study found that the average American eats roughly 1,996 pounds of food each year. With that much food at stake, it makes sense that people are concerned.

Recently in America there has been a push toward “eating local.” Many people want to go to farmers markets and buy their tomatoes and cabbage from the farmer who grew it. They want to buy their eggs from chickens that were raised in hen houses that they could visit, rather than from a place straight out of “Food Inc.” 

In short, people are more aware of where their food is coming from. And that is where “food sovereignty” comes in. It’s an issue that is starting to gain traction in the U.S. Those who advocate for food sovereignty feel that farming has become over regulated. The movement is global, and many farmers around the world are standing up for themselves and for food production as a whole.

What is Food Sovereignty?

La Vía Campesina, an international “peasant” movement, coined the term “food sovereignty” at the 1996 World Food Summit. The group defines it as such:

Food sovereignty is the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through sustainable methods and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems.

With the increased demand for locally-grown produce in America, it’s becoming more popular for farmers to want to sell their produce to their local communities. But it’s also important to note that outside of the U.S., food sovereignty takes on a much more important role. Hannah Wittman, Annette Desmarais, and Nettie Wiebe, authors of “Food Sovereignty: Reconnecting Food, Nature and Community,” wrote: 

The stunted growth and high mortality rates of hungry children and the ill health and lost potential of malnourished adults are clear and tragic results of the chronic food shortages suffered by an increasing number of people. A growing number of households and communities fear for tomorrow’s meals, even though there may be enough food for today.

Shifting more power to local farmers would increase the availability of food. And food would not have to travel as much, making it less costly and more likely to be fresh.

In the U.S., Maine Leads the Way

The U.S. has very structured regulations for farmers. One state is breaking away from this model. On June 16, Maine Governor Paul LePage signed LD 725, or An Act to Recognize Local Control Regarding Food Systems. This act is the first of its kind in the United States. It shifts power from the state to local municipalities. The Bangor Daily News described the rationale behind the law:

Supporters of food sovereignty want local food producers to be exempt from state licensing and inspections governing the selling of food as long as the transactions are between the producers and the customers for home consumption or when the food is sold and consumed at community events such as church suppers.

There were already about 20 municipalities in Maine that had their own food sovereignty laws. Now with this statewide law, municipalities that apply for food sovereignty will be granted more control. 

The law allows small farmers to sell food within their communities with fewer government regulations. Maine Rep. Craig Hickman enthusiastically embraced the passage of the law. In an interview with the Bangor Daily News, he said, “Food sovereignty means the improved health and well-being of the people of Maine by reducing hunger and increasing food self-sufficiency through improved access to wholesome, nutritious, and locally produced foods.”

According to a 2012 USDA census, Maine has some of the youngest farmers in the country. And the field is drawing in more and more young farmers, partially due to the growing demand for local produce. As more farmers embraced this lifestyle, and consumers demanded local produce, Maine decided to change the regulations a bit to accommodate them.

In 2013, many municipalities in Maine fought for food sovereignty. One of their complaints was about a new law that allowed small farms that sold less than $1,000 worth of chicken a year to slaughter chickens on their own farms rather than go to a slaughter house. The regulations it sought to change would require those farms to spend as much as $40,000 to be able to properly slaughter their chickens.

The Advantages of Food Sovereignty

Less regulations may give pause to the more cautious eater or the revolted reader who cannot get the images of “The Jungle” out of his or her head. But many local Maine representatives feel that this new act is a good thing for Maine. So what regulations are being repealed exactly? While the law states that food produced locally must still adhere to federal standards, these local farms do not require state licensing, nor do they have to go through state inspections of food produced, sold, and consumed locally.

The new law does not apply to every food producer and seller, however. Chain grocery stores and establishments selling large quantities of food must still adhere to the old laws. The new act is specifically designed for small farmers selling within their communities.

Betsy Garrold, the acting executive director of Food for Maine’s Future, felt that this will encourage many young and burgeoning farmers to enter the trade. She told the Bangor Daily News, “This means face-to-face transactions are legal if your town has passed a food sovereignty ordinance [and] you can sell food without excessive government regulations,” she said. “If we can feed ourselves, no one can push us around.”

Garrold felt that with the amount of farms in Maine, large and small, it is hard to make one law that regulates everyone equally. “Now if a small vegetable farmer wants to diversify their holdings and run a few meat birds, they can,” she said.

But Not Everyone is Onboard

Maine might be alone in its quest to deregulate farmers for a while. As of right now, no other states are moving to enact food sovereignty laws.

There are national food sovereignty groups, like the U.S. Food Sovereignty Alliance (USFSA). However, the group is more engaged in activism than writing laws. USFSA “works to end poverty, rebuild local food economies, and assert democratic control over the food system,” according to its website.

And while other states do not seem to be following Maine any time soon, not even all Maine farmers are pleased with the new act. When Maine began allowing certain municipalities more sovereignty back in 2013, Kevin Poland, a local Maine farmer, was less than pleased.

“It has nothing to do with encouraging local farming,” Poland said in an interview with NPR back in 2013. “There’s plenty of that here. What there should be more encouragement of is food safety. The state of Maine has laws that work,” he added.

Perhaps this is why other states have not joined Maine in passing their own food sovereignty laws. With all of the criticism that the food industry faces, it could seem counterintuitive to try to ease regulations on those who provide us with our food.

Global Impact

While Maine may be the first state in the U.S. to enact a food sovereignty law, other global initiatives have been on the forefront of this movement for decades. La Vía Campesina (The Peasants’ Way) started in 1993 as a way to support small farmers. The group is now a huge global initiative that has been one of the largest advocates of food sovereignty. 

La Vía Campesina says on its website that it represents, “164 local and national organizations in 73 countries from Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas. Altogether, it represents about 200 million farmers.”

Most recently, the group supported a rally in Morogoro, Tanzania on June 23. The protesters felt that the government was not acting in the best interest of the Tanzanian people. In a statement on its website, La Vía Campesina said, “We know that our African elites in the public and private sectors have been for many years colluding in corruption with the evil transnational corporations which today represent the new face of imperialist neo-colonialism.”

Conclusion

Food sovereignty is a topic that is gaining traction around the world. Those fighting for it do so because they cannot comply with the regulations imposed by the government that are intended for larger farms. For small farmers selling food within their community, these regulations can be damaging. In America, it is less dire that we change our food sovereignty laws, but in other countries, the consequences are higher. Food shortages and government corruption are why farmers around the world want to take their food back into their own hands. 

Anne Grae Martin

Anne Grae Martin is a member of the class of 2017 University of Delaware. She is majoring in English Professional Writing and minoring in French and Spanish. When she’s not writing for Law Street, Anne Grae loves doing yoga, cooking, and correcting her friends’ grammar mistakes. Contact Anne Grae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Food Sovereignty: Shifting Control from the Government to Local Farmers? appeared first on Law Street.

The internet is a powerful tool. It can be used to spread information quickly, to answer any question instantly, and to share photos of vacations. 

But the internet can also be a powerful platform where unsavory things can flourish. All the benefits of being able to spread information quickly and share photos can be used negatively. When these sorts of things are directed at a specific person or group, it is called “cyberbullying.”

Stop Bullying, a website dedicated to spreading awareness about bullying, defines cyberbullying as:

bullying that takes place using electronic technology. Electronic technology includes devices and equipment such as cell phones, computers, and tablets as well as communication tools including social media sites, text messages, chat, and websites. Examples of cyberbullying include mean text messages or emails, rumors sent by email or posted on social networking sites, and embarrassing pictures, videos, websites, or fake profiles.

“Troll-in-Chief”

Recently, President Donald Trump attacked “Morning Joe” co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski on Twitter, saying:

I heard poorly rated @Morning_Joe speaks badly of me (don’t watch anymore). Then how come low I.Q. Crazy Mika, along with Psycho Joe, came..

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 29, 2017

…to Mar-a-Lago 3 nights in a row around New Year’s Eve, and insisted on joining me. She was bleeding badly from a face-lift. I said no!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 29, 2017

This raised a lot of eyebrows and questions. One of the most serious questions raised was if Trump could be banned from Twitter for his behavior. John Cassidy of The New Yorker said that Trump will go down in history as the “Troll-in-Chief” because of his online behavior.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Trump’s spokeswoman, brushed off the criticism her boss was receiving. “This is a president who fights fire with fire,” Sanders explained. But where does self-defense end and cyberbullying begin?

Trump is the face of America to the rest of the world and his actions reflect on the entire country. More than that, as such a public and powerful figure, he is someone children will undoubtedly look up to. So with cyberbullying increasing in schools, it’s dangerous to have the commander-in-chief setting such a poor example for children.

Harmful Effects

The effects of cyberbullying can be serious. According to Stop Bullying, some of the effects cyberbullying can have on a victim include: alcohol and drug use, lower self-esteem, and health problems. 

Cyberbullying happens a lot more frequently than you might think. In a 2016 report by the Department of Education, 20.8 percent of students ages 12 through 18 reported being bullied in the 2014-15 school year. The study found that 6.1 percent of male students experienced bullying online or through text message. 15.9 percent of females reported being bullied online or via text. The disparity between male and female is bad enough. But the numbers themselves show a growing problem.

Cyberbullying is different than other forms of bullying for a few reasons. First, it can occur at any time. A bully no longer needs a face-to-face interaction to inflict harm. Through the wonders of the internet, someone can be reached at any hour of the day via text, social media, email, or other channels on the internet. Next, the layer of anonymity can invite more bullying in perpetrators who normally would not have engaged in the act. An article Psychology Today published in 2013 said,

The ability to be anonymous might increase the likelihood that youths will engage in the behavior. Furthermore, a cyberbully does not necessarily see the reaction of the victim, making it easier to engage in mean behaviors.

Those who engage in cyberbullying are subject to certain anti-bullying laws. See how your state stacks up here. In 2012, Delaware became the first state to introduce a comprehensive cyberbullying policy to be adopted by public schools in the state.

via GIPHY

As of 2017 every state has laws regarding cyberbullying, with most having both a policy and laws. Delaware’s policy was drafted by then-Lieutenant Governor Matt Denn and the late Attorney General Beau Biden. Here’s what Delaware’s policy says:

Incidents of cyberbullying shall be treated by each school district and charter school in the same manner as incidents of bullying, and notice of each school district’s and charter school’s policy against cyberbullying shall be provided to students, staff, and faculty in the same manner as notice of the school district’s and charter school’s policy against bullying.

This specific cyberbullying policy is intended for schools and how they can take action. But what about when cyberbullying takes place outside of a school setting?  

Many websites have anti-harassment rules, though they can get tricky to enforce. Take the President of the United States, for example. On July 2, only a few days after the Morning Joe attack, he tweeted:

#FraudNewsCNN #FNN pic.twitter.com/WYUnHjjUjg

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 2, 2017

Many people have suggested that Twitter ban Trump for this behavior. Twitter’s rules explicitly say “You may not make threats of violence or promote violence, including threatening or promoting terrorism.”

But the social media giant has not banned the president. Yet. Banning the president is a big deal, but cyberbullying is a pretty big deal, too.

Anne Grae Martin

Anne Grae Martin is a member of the class of 2017 University of Delaware. She is majoring in English Professional Writing and minoring in French and Spanish. When she’s not writing for Law Street, Anne Grae loves doing yoga, cooking, and correcting her friends’ grammar mistakes. Contact Anne Grae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Can Twitter Ban Donald Trump for Cyberbullying? appeared first on Law Street.

For a president who has defined himself by his harsh immigration stance, President Donald Trump’s recent announcement seemed to go against this position. Dreamers, for now, will not have their protections eliminated, Trump said. In a June 15 statement, the Department of Homeland Security said: “The June 15, 2012 memorandum that created the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program will remain in effect.”

This seemed like good news for Dreamers. But White House officials said that the long-term plan for DACA and Dreamers has not been officially set, leaving hundreds of thousands of immigrants in limbo. Trump’s statement followed an interview with the Associated Press in April, when Trump said that Dreamers could “rest easy.” The Trump Administration is “not after the dreamers, we are after the criminals,” he said.

Becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen is a long process. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services lists the 10 steps that one must take to become a naturalized citizen. Though it’s broken down into 10 steps, these steps can, and do, take years. USCIS also created a “worksheet” that people can follow to see if they qualify to become U.S. citizens. For those without help–legal or otherwise–the process can seem daunting.

DACA created a channel for certain immigrants, specifically children brought to the U.S. by their parents to gain the legal documentation to remain in the country. Calling this channel into question causes anxiety for many immigrants who previously thought they were safe. 

What is a Dreamer?

“Dreamer” is the term often given to those covered by DACA. This gets confusing because there is a separate act, the “Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act of 2011,” commonly referred to as the DREAM Act. The distinction is that the DREAM Act was never passed. A report released by University of California, Los Angeles summarizes the program as such:

First introduced in 2001 by Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Richard Durbin (D-IL), the DREAM Act is a bipartisan bill that would provide undocumented youths who came to the United States before the age of sixteen a path toward legalization on the condition that they attend college or serve in the U.S. military for a minimum of two years while maintaining good moral character

Former President Barack Obama ultimately created an executive order that came to be known as DACA (see below for more details on the specifics). DACA, while it did not provide a path to citizenship, worked to ensure that immigrants who came to the United States as minors and who were now pursuing work or education, could not be deported. The fact that DACA is an executive order and not an act  opens it up to vulnerability at the hands of Obama’s successors, including Trump, who could roll it back.

The protections of DACA provide peace of mind for the Dreamers it covers. For young immigrants who are trying to earn a college degree, the program provides assurances that they can continue their studies without the risk of deportation. But under Trump, Dreamers cannot rest easy quite yet. On June 16, a day after announcing the program will stay for the time being, White House officials said that the long-term fate of the program has not yet been decided.

What exactly is DACA?

The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, is an immigration policy enacted in 2012 under the Obama Administration. Rather than working toward a path to legalization, DACA allows immigrants who entered the country illegally as minors to apply every two years for a work permit. The purpose of this policy was to take the pressure off non-threatening illegal immigrants. If an immigrant came to the U.S. as a minor and was working or attending school and not getting in trouble with the law, he or she would not be deported. DACA currently covers around 750,000 immigrants.  

Obama’s Legacy

Obama left a mixed legacy in terms of immigration. While Obama never incited chants to “Build a wall,” he still cannot be considered a savior for immigrants. According to the Department of Homeland Security, he deported more illegal immigrants than any of his predecessors. Compared to George W. Bush, Obama’s deportation numbers are far higher. Obama deported roughly three million compared to Bush’s two million. Obama, too, was stricter about fining companies that employed illegal immigrants.

But right now the most important remaining aspects of Obama’s immigration legacy stem from DACA. Immigrants protected under this policy do not represent the majority. In fact, of the almost 11 million illegal immigrants in the country, DACA covers about 750,000. So while the Trump Administration’s current promise to retain DACA is a step forward for those who support immigration, the status of a majority of illegal immigrants remains in jeopardy.

“You Need to be Worried”

White House officials have been careful to not mince words. Thomas Homan, acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, had direct advice for illegal immigrants. At a recent House Appropriations subcommittee hearing, he said, “If you are in this country illegally, and you committed a crime by entering this country, you should be uncomfortable, you should look over your shoulder, and you need to be worried.”

The Trump Administration’s statement released on June 15 also said DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans) would be rolled back. DAPA, a policy to protect the illegal immigrant parents of American citizens or people who have legal documentation to be in the country, was never actually put in place. After making it all the way to the Supreme Court, a deadlocked 4-4 court could not rule on the proposed plan. But it has now been effectively voided by Trump.

More Uncertainty for Immigrants

Trump ran a campaign that was hardly subtle about his feelings about immigrants. Trump began his campaign making unsavory comments about Mexican immigrants. “Build a wall,” an allusion to increased security on the Mexican border, was one of the bastions of the president’s election rallies. But many immigrants, not just from Mexico, have felt the hostility of the current administration.

And once he got into office, Trump wasted no time in trying to stymie immigration. After exactly one week in office, the president signed an executive order suspending citizens from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen from coming to the United States for 90 days. The following day, federal Judge Ann M. Donnelly blocked part of the executive order on the grounds that it “violates their rights to Due Process and Equal Protection guaranteed by the United States Constitution.”

On February 2, the administration eased the executive order to exclude those with green cards. A month later, on March 6, the president released another revised travel suspension, this time excluding Iraq. This revised ban was blocked by district court Judge Derrick Watson of Hawaii. Additional parts of the revised ban have been blocked by federal judges as well. The actions taken by the Trump Administration have been for the safety of the American people, the president says. But more than protect Americans, the attempted bans have cast the Trump Administration as one that is unfriendly to immigrants.

While Trump has yet to sign an executive order that suspends immigration from Mexico or other Latin American countries, he has not been extending an open welcome to any of those citizens either. Trump has repeatedly emphasized the need to build a wall on the Mexican-American border– a wall that Mexico will pay for, he has said. Before Trump was inaugurated, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto made clear that Mexico would not be paying for the wall. For now, the fate of the wall (and who will pay for it if it ever gets built) remains uncertain.

What also remains uncertain is the fate of certain immigrants with DACA status. Juan Manuel Montes, 23, had been in the United States since he was nine. Montes had protection under DACA that allowed him to live in the United States legally, as long as he kept renewing his two-year work permit. Montes says that back in February he forgot his wallet (with his ID and DACA papers in it) in a friend’s car. While waiting for a ride home, border patrol agents stopped him.

Without papers, Montes had no way to prove he had legal justification to not be deported. He was swiftly sent to Mexico. The Department of Homeland Security denies deporting Montes at all. Rather, they said they found him crossing the U.S. border, an action Montes claims he took after being deported. While the details are unclear, the overall message is not. Immigrants protected by DACA are safe from deportation now, but their status could change.

Conclusion

The future remains murky for immigrants. Those coming from the Middle East could be subject to yet another revised travel ban. Those already in the country, living under protections that formerly guaranteed their safety may eventually not have those same privileges. The volatility that the Trump Administration has been demonstrating likely won’t put anyone at ease. With the president saying or tweeting something one day and then his officials clarifying his statements days or hours later, it makes it hard to know what is happening. Uncertainty is the biggest concern right now.

Anne Grae Martin

Anne Grae Martin is a member of the class of 2017 University of Delaware. She is majoring in English Professional Writing and minoring in French and Spanish. When she’s not writing for Law Street, Anne Grae loves doing yoga, cooking, and correcting her friends’ grammar mistakes. Contact Anne Grae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Future for Dreamers: A Road of Uncertainty Under President Trump appeared first on Law Street.

To raise or not to raise? That is the question when it comes to the minimum wage. The national minimum wage is $7.25, but many states have set their own minimum wages a few dollars higher (see how your state stacks up). A person working at the federal rate would earn about $15,000 a year. When the current rate was set in 2009, a single parent raising a child under the age of 18 would be above the poverty line…though not by much.

According to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), the federal poverty line for a two-person household in 2009 was $14,570. In 2016, the ASPE put the poverty line for a two-person household at $16,240. And while the poverty line has increased, the minimum wage has not, prompting many people to push for a raise in the minimum wage.

But it’s not that simple. Many people fight back against the thought of raising the minimum wage. One argument against raising the minimum wage is that it would hurt low-skilled workers. Companies will not want to pay more to employees for the same work they were getting before the rise in the minimum wage. Thus, they will lay off employees to not lose profits. What’s more, they will not hire as many workers either, now that they “cost” more.

Tim Worstall, a Forbes contributor, raised this exact concern when talking about Seattle raising its minimum wage back in 2016. “A rise in the price of something will lead to people purchasing less of that thing,” he said in an article for Forbes. “So a rise in the price of low-skill labor will lead to employers purchasing less of low-skill labor.” A trend, Worstall said, that was confirmed when Seattle raised its minimum wage and saw a decrease in hiring low-wage workers.

History of the Minimum Wage

The first minimum wage was set in 1938. It was introduced under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt during the Great Depression. The idea of a minimum wage is to protect workers, and having a minimum wage helps the government, too. If people are working and staying above the poverty line, that is less money that the government has to spend on welfare or other government programs to help the poor. When it was first introduced, the minimum wage was $0.25 an hour. In today’s dollars that would be $4.19.

Since its introduction, Congress has raised the minimum wage 22 times. The most recent raise was in 2009 when it increased from $6.55 to $7.25. There are many reasons why the minimum wage gets raised, including inflation and the changing value of the dollar, as well as an increase in productivity.

The Case for Raising the Minimum Wage

One of the strongest cases for raising the minimum wage is the fact that a single parent, working for the minimum wage and raising a child under the age of 18, is living below the poverty line. If the minimum wage was invented to help and protect workers, this is a clear failure.

Another argument for raising the minimum wage would be the positive effect it might have on the economy. According to a report from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, increasing the minimum wage by $1.75 an hour would result in an increase of $48 billion in household spending. When people have more money, they will spend more money. If a family is living at or below the poverty line, they are less inclined to spend what little money they have on anything but the essentials. Earning even a little more an hour, households would have more to spend on products that they normally would not have purchased.

In addition, raising the minimum wage could help augment the disparity in wages in the U.S. The disparity between the richest one percent and the rest of the country is staggering. Raising the minimum wage has the potential to move almost 900,000 people (out of 45 million) out of poverty, according to the Congressional Budget Office. While this is a small percentage, it is a step in the right direction. Bringing people out of poverty eases tension on the government, as a less impoverished populace means that the government will spend less on welfare and programs.

Peer pressure is another reason to raise the minimum wage. An article in The Economist explains that the U.S. is an outlier when it comes to other countries’s minimum wage rate. Considering the U.S.’ GDP per person ($53,000), the country’s minimum wage should be about $12 per hour. Converted to U.S. dollars, the minimum wages of many other western countries far surpass America’s. Australia, France, Germany, the U.K., and Canada all have higher minimum wages than we do. However, this is not a case of apples to oranges. Living conditions, local economies, taxes, health care, and a slew of other factors play into this as well. 

The Case Against Raising the Minimum Wage

Now let’s address some of the arguments against raising the minimum wage. While the current minimum wage would put a single parent below the poverty line, it would not put a dual-income household below the poverty line. Furthermore, not all living conditions are equal around the country. Many states have minimum wages that are higher than the federal one in order to compensate for higher living costs within those states.

Next, while decreasing the need for welfare paid by the government sounds positive, the money does have to come from somewhere. While the government is not paying as much for welfare, companies now take on that burden of paying people more. The effect of this is two-fold. Companies, in an effort to save money, may lay off workers, thus putting more people on welfare anyway. Companies may also raise the prices of their products, so the consumers will take a hit for the higher paid employees.

Also, companies may slow hiring employees because they now “cost” more. When it comes down to someone getting paid $7.25 an hour or $0.00 an hour, getting paid something is more beneficial than not earning anything at all. These threats are not just hypothetical. Rising minimum wage rates are happening in certain states and the effects are already starting to show.

In January 2017 some states raised their local minimum wages, causing national chains based in those restaurants to start paying their workers more for the same job they were doing before. Wendy’s CEO Bob Wright expects to spend four percent more on employees’ wages. To offset this, Wright had every store cut 31 hours of labor per week and replaced that lost labor with automated kiosks at some locations.

Some critics also argue that raising the minimum wage hurts lower-skilled workers and younger workers. The Pew Research Center published an article claiming that nearly half of all workers who are earning minimum wage are aged 16 to 24. Young members of the workforce who are trying to break their way in will have a harder time.

Companies might be less willing to hire someone with no experience and pay them a higher wage. They will be more willing to hire someone with more experience who they feel will be a better value for this higher price. Of course this then becomes a vicious cycle of young workers not getting hired because they do not have experience and having a harder time finding work because they continue to not get experience. A lower minimum wage might give young workers more opportunities.

What Should the Minimum Wage Be?

If the minimum wage is going to increase, how much should it increase by? There are a variety of numbers that get thrown around when talking about raising the minimum wage. Here is a breakdown of how people arrive at these figures.

Some people argue it should be raised to $21.67. The minimum wage had the highest purchasing power in 1968 when it was $1.60, or roughly $10.55 today when adjusting for inflation. Some studies show that personal income, excluding Social Security, has increased by 100 percent, and thus the minimum wage should be adjusted to fit that standard as well.

Others argue it should be raised to $15. In 2014 and 2015, many major cities put into place economic plans that would gradually increase the minimum wage to $15 by 2017 and 2018. Cities that enacted those plans include New York, Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Washington D.C. 

In 2014, The Economic Policy Institute made the case that the minimum wage should be raised to $10.10, arguing that it should be raised over a three-year period. This amount was determined to ease pressure on Medicaid and other governmental assistance programs. The debate over the minimum wage rages on, and states may adjust their own minimum wages because the federal one is too hard to change right now.

What’s Happening Now?

There has not been much movement at the federal level. Individual states are combating the federal inertia. On January 1, 2017, 19 states raised their minimum wages. The majority of the changes were to adjust for inflation (Missouri, Ohio, and Florida raising their minimum wages by only $0.05 an hour), but some states saw significant increases, like Maine (from $7.50 to $9.00), Washington ($9.47 to $11.00), and Arizona ($8.05 to $10.00). Many states have plans to increase their minimum wages in the coming years as well.

As a candidate, President Donald Trump suggested the minimum wage might be too high. In a debate in November 2015, he said in his opening statement that he would not raise the minimum wage and that wages were “too high.” He had said previously that year in an interview with MSNBC that a higher minimum wage would hurt America. “We can’t have a situation where our labor is so much more expensive than other countries’ that we can no longer win,” Trump said. This may be bad news for Trump supporters, many of whom work at the minimum wage and struggle to get by.

Conclusion

The minimum wage debate is not a new one and it’s not one that will end any time soon. Inflation and the fluctuating value of the dollar will forever throw the minimum wage’s value into question. As it stands, the current minimum wage is too low for many people to live on, but too drastic of an increase could result in far more catastrophic job loss. A delicate hand and a knowledgable course of action will be the best hope going forward. It seems that this issue will not be raised in the current administration any time soon; individual states should (and are) trying to ameliorate the issue on a local scale. If you want to see change, go out and call, mail, email, tweet, or visit your local representatives. They’re the ones who will be able to help the most right now.

Anne Grae Martin

Anne Grae Martin is a member of the class of 2017 University of Delaware. She is majoring in English Professional Writing and minoring in French and Spanish. When she’s not writing for Law Street, Anne Grae loves doing yoga, cooking, and correcting her friends’ grammar mistakes. Contact Anne Grae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Minimum Wage: Where Are We Going and How Did We Get Here? appeared first on Law Street.

Space: the final frontier. Outer space has been in the news a lot recently. The recent discovery of seven Earth-sized planets orbiting TRAPPIST-1 in February excited many people at the possibility to explore further into space. What’s more, different companies have been conducting successful experiments to launch commercial flights to space. Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic and Elon Musk’s SpaceX have both been conducting successful tests of their burgeoning passenger spaceships.

SpaceX launches previously used cargo capsule, a big stride toward eventually reusing spacecraft carrying astronauts https://t.co/QSMb8K0nHj

— Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) June 3, 2017

The allure of space goes beyond the human need to explore new places and see new sights. The financial gain could be huge as well. There are asteroids full of valuable elements, such as platinum. According to a 98-page client memo, Goldman Sachs said that a craft could be built for $2.6 billion and could extract anywhere from $25 to $50 billion worth of platinum from an asteroid.

Of course this raises many issues, one of which is the risk of inundating the market with platinum and tanking its value.

via GIPHY

Another potential issue is the Outer Space Treaty, drafted in 1967 by the U.S. and the USSR. The countries’ main fear was nuclear weapons being put in space, but the treaty laid the groundwork for space exploration. Essentially what the treaty established was that the act of space exploration should be used to benefit humankind. In fact, one line of the treaty explicitly says:

…Believing that the exploration and use of outer space should be carried on for the benefit of all peoples irrespective of the degree of their economic or scientific development…

When the treaty was signed, national governments, and not private companies, had the capital available to venture into space exploration. In 2017, the economic landscape is a bit different. If Goldman Sachs wants to send its own personal spaceship to an asteroid to mine it for platinum, will the profits be used “for the benefit of all peoples” as the treaty would require?

Article VI of the treaty, the only article that addresses “non-governmental entities,” says that the nation the private entity is located in would have to police its actions. It states:

States Parties to the Treaty shall bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the present Treaty. The activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty…

The U.S. would have to ensure that Goldman Sachs use the profits of its mining to benefit all peoples.

Space, as of right now, is technically res communis, or common territory, like a park or the high sea. Unfortunately, what you can and cannot do there is not as clearly defined as it is in these territories. The treaty prohibits “national appropriation by claim of sovereignty,” so does that mean that no one can build a hotel on Mars? And what about that gold mine (well, platinum mine) in the asteroid? Does Goldman Sachs even have the right to mine it, even if it can get there?

For now, space is a legal gray area. We have a long way to go before we become like The Jetsons or Zenon. But it’s still fun to think that one day we could get there.

via GIPHY

Anne Grae Martin

Anne Grae Martin is a member of the class of 2017 University of Delaware. She is majoring in English Professional Writing and minoring in French and Spanish. When she’s not writing for Law Street, Anne Grae loves doing yoga, cooking, and correcting her friends’ grammar mistakes. Contact Anne Grae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Space Exploration: Can Private Companies Operate in Space? appeared first on Law Street.

Have you ever cut loose and kicked off your Sunday shoes at a club in New York City? Unless that establishment had a Cabaret License (only 118 out of more than 25,000 do), you were breaking the law. That’s right. According to New York City law:

The City licenses bars, clubs, taverns, and discos that allow dancing. A place that is open to the public and sells food or drinks must have a Cabaret License to allow customers to dance.

This law started in 1926 during Prohibition when city officials targeted African American jazz establishments. When it was first introduced, there were several other regulations that targeted other bastions of African American culture at the time, including banning saxophones and bands with more than three members. While these other parts of the law have been repealed or found to be unconstitutional, the ban on dancing still remains. With clubs already subjected to safety regulations like fire hazards and noise violations, the Cabaret License requirement seems to serve no purpose.

.@FrankieFatGold explains NYC’s Cabaret Law & why it needs to be repealed! Let’s dance in protest tomorrow → https://t.co/rt7zEh2Acz pic.twitter.com/1lnDQJTOiZ

— BOILER ROOM (@boilerroomtv) May 10, 2017

A petition on change.org has recently been gaining traction. The petitioners, the Dance Liberation Network, are aiming to get 5,000 signatures to present to the New York City Council, with the goal of getting the law repealed once and for all.

The Cabaret License requires proprietors to install security cameras, appear before the community board, and pay anywhere from $270 to $535. Once the license is acquired, club owners must follow the law or risk paying $1,000 per violation. Its intent is to keep patrons safe, but with other existing laws in place, this “no dancing” ban seems superfluous. Coupled with its inherently racist roots, the law is likely on its way out.

Or is it?

The law had a revival during Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s tenure, and was used to crack down on different bars and night clubs. But not without protests. In 2000, protesters participated in the “Million Mambo March” where they danced all the way from Tompkins Square Park to Washington Square Park in an effort to bring awareness to the law.

via GIPHY

In 2003 Mayor Michael Bloomberg attempted to change the Cabaret Laws to Nightlife Licences that had more logical applications. Rather than curbing dancing and saxophones (truly the Devil’s pastimes, let’s be real), the Nightlife Licences would aim to regulate noise and unruly crowds. Unfortunately, this measure was struck down.

In 2014 Brooklyn bar owner Andrew Muchmore filed a lawsuit after he was fined for having people dancing in his bar. Muchmore contends that these laws go against the First Amendment and the Fourteenth’s promise that no state shall, “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”  

Muchmore also felt that the ambiguity of what dancing really is can be confusing. Could he be fined if his patrons accidentally started tapping their toes to the jukebox? What about an accidental shake of the hips as you wait at the bar? Standing on a table proclaiming loyalty to La Vie Boheme? The legal definition of dancing is vague, and it is unfair for bar owners.

via GIPHY

Now the law is once again being challenged. By getting enough signatures, the Dance Liberation Network hopes that the New York City Council will once and for all overturn this law and let the people of New York City dance.

Anne Grae Martin

Anne Grae Martin is a member of the class of 2017 University of Delaware. She is majoring in English Professional Writing and minoring in French and Spanish. When she’s not writing for Law Street, Anne Grae loves doing yoga, cooking, and correcting her friends’ grammar mistakes. Contact Anne Grae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hold Back Before You Cut Loose: A Look at NYC’s No Dancing Law appeared first on Law Street.

“Hi this is Sara, I’m calling with important information about your credit card. Nothing is wrong, but you are eligible for a great opportunity. Stay on the line or press one for more information.”

If you have a working telephone, you have probably received a call just like this or one of a similar nature. Assuming you didn’t hang up immediately, you pressed one to try and speak with a human to get your number taken off their list. And you most likely were met with a “click” signaling that they had hung up on you, rather than taken you off their list.

Free cruises, important information about your credit card, debt collection, calls from the IRS, warnings about a computer virus, and a whole litany of other enticing robocalls are increasing–despite their illegality. In April alone there were 2.5 billion robocalls placed in the U.S.

The FCC defines robocalls as unsolicited, pre-recorded messages that are placed without written or verbal consent. Exceptions are information about flight changes and school closings.

So, if they’re illegal, why are they still happening? The first reason is the ease with which they can be placed. According to the FCC, new technology allows these scammers to use inexpensive autodial technology to call hundreds of numbers a minute, whether they are on the Do Not Call list or not.

Do you want to know how to stop unwanted calls? Read these #FCCtips to #StopRobocalls: https://t.co/kkwwqxlOVK #ProtectingConsumers

— The FCC (@FCC) May 10, 2017

Even though robocalls are difficult to stop, a new string of lawsuits are aiming to curb this problem.

In January, the FTC filed two suits, FTC v. Justin Ramsey, et al. and FTC v. Aaron Michael Jones, et al., against two of the biggest perpetrators of robocalling. Many of the defendants have agreed to a settlement that includes a permanent ban on robocalling in the future, an agreement to never help others to place robocalls, a promise to stop calling numbers listed on the Do Not Call list, and paying a settlement to the FTC of over $500,000. 

In 2012 Grant Birchmeier and Stephen Parkes filed a class-action lawsuit against Caribbean Cruise Line, claiming that the company illegally contacted them and others on multiple occasions. The settlement resulted in Caribbean Cruise Line agreeing to pay up to $500 a call to those who received calls between August 2011 to August 2012.

Unfortunately, these fines and lawsuits are hardly threatening. One scam that pretended to be the IRS, was able to swindle $26.5 million from about 5,000 people, according to the (real) IRS. Telephone companies are working on new technology to block robocalls. But while those are still experiencing some hiccups, there are some preventative measures you can take.

First, don’t answer unfamiliar calls. If someone really wants to get in contact with you, they can leave a message. Most robocallers are testing your number to see if there is a real person at the other end. Not answering prevents them from getting that knowledge. Once they do know there is someone there, that number gets passed around to more and more robocall centers.

If you get any calls like this, submit the suspicious numbers to the FTC at this link: https://complaints.donotcall.gov/complaint/complaintcheck.aspx. Furthermore, you should put yourself on the Do Not Call list. Being on this list won’t prevent all calls from scammers, but it will cut down on some. Here is the link: https://www.donotcall.gov/

You can register for the National Do-Not-Call list at https://t.co/ZeZdjVjejK, by phone 1-888-382-1222 or TTY 1-866-290-4236. #FCC101

— The FCC (@FCC) May 10, 2017

 Finally, never give your bank account information or credit card information over the phone to a stranger. No matter what scare tactics they use (telling you you’re being sued for fraud, telling you your computer has a virus, etc.) do not give them your personal information. It’s always best to hang up and verify that what they are saying is true.

For the near future, it looks like we will be plagued by robocalls. But if you follow these steps, you’re on the way to stopping them.

Anne Grae Martin

Anne Grae Martin is a member of the class of 2017 University of Delaware. She is majoring in English Professional Writing and minoring in French and Spanish. When she’s not writing for Law Street, Anne Grae loves doing yoga, cooking, and correcting her friends’ grammar mistakes. Contact Anne Grae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Problem with Robocalling–And How to Stop It appeared first on Law Street.