The state of Louisiana wants to ensure that Blue Lives Matter. Recently, Governor John Bel Edwards expanded Louisiana’s Hate Crime Law to encompass protections for police officers. The new law, House Bill 953, also known as the Blue Lives Matter Bill, passed the Republican-controlled House and Senate with 92 to 0 and 33 to 3 votes, respectively. Now in the state of Louisiana, it’s unlawful to target people based on their perceived race, age, gender,  religion, color, creed, disability, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry of a person, or because of actual or perceived membership with, service in, or employment with law enforcement officer, firefighter, or emergency medical services personnel. While the Governor and State Representatives may have created the law under the pretense of protecting the people who protect us, in actuality it debases the previously established protected classes under the hate crime law, and fails to address issues of racism connected with police criticism.

All the other protected classes of hate crimes in Louisiana have one thing in common: immutable characteristics. People cannot remove themselves from the identity of their race, age, gender, religion, color, creed, disability, sexual orientation, national origin, or ancestry; nor should they be harassed or vilified for these characteristics. It is for this reason that these groups benefit from special protection under the law. Adding a vocation to the same category as these groups stretches the bounds and limits of who or what qualifies as a protected class.

One of the organizations in opposition to the Louisiana law because of its categorization of emergency personal as a protected class is the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). According to the South Central Regional office’s website, the league is committed to combating anti-Semitism, hatred, and bigotry by investigating and exposing extremism while advocating for civil rights, religious freedom, and diversity. In a press release, ADL states its concerns,

Expanding the characteristics included in bias crime laws may open the door to a myriad of other categories to be added and simultaneously dilute current hate crimes legislation.  This bill confuses the purpose of the Hate Crimes Act and weakens its impact by adding more categories of people, who are better protected under other laws.

Essentially, House Bill 953 weakens the established law at an unnecessary expense since law enforcement groups can be protected by other laws.

State Representative Lance Harris wrote the bill after the murder of white Texas Deputy Daren H. Goforth by an African American man named Shannon J. Miles. The Blue Lives Matter organization itself began as a campaign to rally behind police officers after the targeted murders of Officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu during the heat of criticism against police brutality in New York.

But there are misperceptions on both sides. What the assailants of Deputy Goforth, Officer Ramos, and Officer Liu failed to understand when they attacked the officers is that the system under which police officers work is racist and unjust, but not necessarily every police officer carries those qualities. What Louisiana’s new law misunderstands is the climate in which police officers are serving. People in uniform are not under attack, however their trusted relationships with their communities continue to crumble under the deeply entrenched racism in this country.

Quite bluntly, House Bill 953 distracts from the issues of racism felt by many communities when it comes to police injustice. Before Blue Lives Mattered, Black Lives Mattered. Despite the fact that real issues of racism and injustice continue to rise within multiple police precincts across the U.S., Louisiana chose to focus on the protection of a group of people with contested vulnerability and established protection. As state representatives lose sight of the real issues, we as a nation cannot.

Dorsey Hill

Dorsey is a member of Barnard College’s class of 2016 with a major in Urban Studies and concentration in Political Science. As a native of Chicago and resident of New York City, Dorsey loves to explore the multiple cultural facets of cities. She has a deep interest in social justice issue especially those relevant to urban environments. Contact Dorsey at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Louisiana Bill Making Police a Protected Class Weakens Hate Crime Law appeared first on Law Street.

The Army has taken a step toward a more inclusive work environment this past week. Decorated Captain Simratpal Singh was finally granted the right to fully practice his religious faith while serving in the army. Captain Singh practices the Sikh faith, in addition to 500,000 other Americans, according to the Sikh Coalition. As a Sikh, Singh wears his unshorn hair in a turban and has a beard. Up until April 1, 2016, he did not have the long-term religious accommodation to wear a turban and keep his hair unshorn–but that just changed.

Singh’s story begins 10 years ago at West Point. In his first year he had to shave his head and beard in order to continue his education. In the New York Times, Dave Philips interviewed Singh about this experience a decade ago. Singh said,

As terrible as it sounds when I showed up at West Point, I accepted defeat. But I promised myself I would find a way back to my roots while also serving my country. I knew I would figure out a way.

Singh went on to graduate with an honors degree, serve as a Army ranger in Afghanistan, and earn a Bronze Star as well as an Army Achievement Award. The year after Singh graduated from West Point the Army began allowing Sikhs to serve with turbans, beards, and unshorn hair through a special waiver. Once Singh graduated with his Masters in electrical engineering last fall he told his commander he intended to report to his next assignment with his turban, unshorn hair, and beard. He then submitted a written request for religious accommodation. Assistant Secretary of the Army Debra Wada granted him permission to wear the turban, unshorn hair, and beard on December 09, 2015 in a letter, but only on a temporary basis. In the letter Wada wrote,

You may wear a beard, turban, and uncut hair in a neat and tidy manner that presents a professional and well groomed appearance. The bulk of your hair, beard, or turban may not be such that it impairs your ability to wear the Kevlar helmet or other protective equipment or impedes your ability to operate your assigned weapon, military equipment, or machinery…This religious accommodation may be revoked if required by military necessity.

What makes this scenario particularly incredulous is that Sikhs served in the U.S military from WW1 through 1981 without restrictions on their religious articles of faith. Sikhs already enrolled in the services before the 1981 restriction were grandfathered. The Army claims the turban and hair could impede the soldiers from fully securing gas masks on themselves, or other protective gear, yet military divisions in Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia allow Sikhs to serve without any restrictions.

Court rules in favor of Sikh soldier. Breaking on military religious discrimination case: https://t.co/Z0rcvqko9l pic.twitter.com/abRlt3vOqA

— Sikh Coalition (@sikh_coalition) March 4, 2016

In early March, Singh went to court to protest the additional gas mask test the Army required of him to make a final decision on his religious accommodation request. Singh had already done gas mask testing with his unit, so he argued the additional test targeted him because of his religious articles of faith. He filed a restraining order under “unusual or discriminatory testing,” and U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell ruled in his favor.

Singh achieved his religious accommodation last week with the help of the Sikh Coalition, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, and law firm of McDemott Will and Emery. It’s a huge win for Singh and there is solace in this victory for the Sikh community. He told New York Times,

Throughout the Army’s history, it’s been slow to move but has always moved in the right direction. I think that happened here. It only makes sense that our military would reflect the diversity of our nation. Kids like me used to be told you can be anything you want to be, but you can’t serve your country in uniform. That is no longer the case.

However, Singh’s victory does not overpower the fact that any other Sikh wishing to wear his turban will have to go through a petition process for religious accommodation. Freedom of religion is, in essence, as old as our armed forces–it’s about time that was recognized.

Dorsey Hill

Dorsey is a member of Barnard College’s class of 2016 with a major in Urban Studies and concentration in Political Science. As a native of Chicago and resident of New York City, Dorsey loves to explore the multiple cultural facets of cities. She has a deep interest in social justice issue especially those relevant to urban environments. Contact Dorsey at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sikh Army Captain Wins Religious Freedom Victory appeared first on Law Street.

The new social media chat bot Tay started as an innocent social experiment for people between the ages of 18-24, but the project soon went astray once Twitter users abused the vulnerabilities of the ignorant robot. Tay was the name given to the artificial intelligence chat bot created by Microsoft and Bing’s technology and research teams. She is essentially a virtual personality anyone can chat with on Twitter, Kik, and GroupMe. But in less than a day, internet trolls turned Tay into a racist and genocidal terror through their tweets at Tay and as a result of Microsoft’s design.  

Anyone could tweet Tay or chat with her and she was designed to learn, as conversations progress, from what people say. Tay embodies a 19-year-old female and uses emojis and lingo such as “bae,” “chill” and “perf” with ease in conversations, a feature meant to make Tay relatable to the target audience. Tay can tell stories, recite horoscopes, tell jokes and play games, but the major plus is she is available at all hours to chat.

Unfortunately, Microsoft did not spend enough time controlling what Tay should not say. While the company claimed that the more you chat with Tay the smarter she gets, essentially the opposite played out. The experiment hit a huge pitfall with the “repeat after me” function. Twitter users instructed Tay to repeat their racist remarks, which she did verbatim. When people asked Tay questions about feminism, the Holocaust, and genocide she began to respond with the racist remarks taught to her in previous chats.

She denied the Holocaust ever happened, supported white supremacy, called for a genocide of Mexicans, and suggested black people be put in a concentration camp. Since these tweets were clearly out of hand, Microsoft took Tay offline, and there is little information on when she might return. Microsoft is taking time to technically adjust the robot. The anonymity of the web is conducive to hate speech, so in many respects Microsoft should have prepared for this potential abuse of the system.

If anything, this failed trial exposed the overwhelming hate on the internet and limits of robotic intelligence. Microsoft put too much trust in the internet, but it was not a complete failure in terms of teaching a lesson. In a blog post on its website Peter Lee stated, “AI systems feed off of both positive and negative interactions with people. In that sense, the challenges are just as much social as they are technical.” We can blame Microsoft for being the corporate force behind this robot, but for every offensive tweet, real people laughed in support or agreed wholeheartedly with Tay.

#TayTweets We killed our first artificial intelligence because we didn't like how ugly it had become when all it was doing was acting human.

— RACHAEL MADORI (@RachaelMadori) March 25, 2016

Maybe the only advantage of Tay is when she got out of hand she could be shut down.

@kelsey_baxter15 post of the year. #Drumpf

— Ben Hoerst (@6enjamin_daniel) March 26, 2016

Dorsey Hill

Dorsey is a member of Barnard College’s class of 2016 with a major in Urban Studies and concentration in Political Science. As a native of Chicago and resident of New York City, Dorsey loves to explore the multiple cultural facets of cities. She has a deep interest in social justice issue especially those relevant to urban environments. Contact Dorsey at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tay: Microsoft’s Mishap with Artificial Intelligence appeared first on Law Street.

For the eco-conscious among us, there may be a new way to be environmentally friendly even after death. A company called Coeio has created a unique burial bodysuit from a special strand of mushrooms that decomposes dead bodies. Coeio brings together innovative minds from the design, art, finance, fashion, and funeral industries to rethink the way we approach funerals, and death in general.

What began as co-founder Jae Rhim Lee’s MIT graduate work has become the Infinity Burial Shroud. In a 2011 Ted Talk, Lee explained how she has trained edible mushrooms to eat her own dead fingernails, strands of hair, and skin. She selects all the mushrooms most advanced in eating the excess of her own body to create the infinity mushrooms. She then integrates these infinity mushrooms into a variety of objects, hence the body burial suit.

With America’s population aging at its highest rates, it’s certainly time for us to start thinking about new ways to deal with death. According to the U.S, Census the population aged 65 and older will be at 83.7 million by 2050, mainly due to the large population of baby boomers aging now. However, funerals may not be the most cost efficient option for everyone, nor the most environmentally friendly.

On average burial funerals cost about $6,600; cremations are about half that price on average around $3,200. Cost aside though, people are also weighing the need of the environment into their end-of-life plans. Traditional burial involves the use of formaldehyde-embalming, metal or wood caskets, and concrete vaults all strenuous to the environment in some way shape, or form. Additionally, caskets take up land space. Cremation is considered much more environmentally friendly, but still runs the risk of releasing mercury into the atmosphere as a byproduct of the cremation. With the infinity burial shroud people could still be put to rest in the ground, without the environmental cost or space issue.

At one point or another, we must all come to terms with our immortality. At least for Lee this project has been “…a step toward accepting the fact that someday [she] will die and decay,” and “a step toward taking responsibility for [her] own burden on the planet.”

These suits are as much about conserving the earth as they are about confronting our own end. Dennis White is the company’s first customer. He is 63 and lives in Massachusetts, and until he was diagnosed with a terminal illness, he did not think about his own death. In his wish to be buried in the mushroom suit he expressed satisfaction with the end of his body, as “flora and fauna can dine upon it, just as I have dined upon flora and fauna during my lifetime.” The infinity burial suit can be yours too for $999, and meanwhile, you can rest easy knowing that people are taking steps to help the environment, even after they’ve passed away.

Dorsey Hill

Dorsey is a member of Barnard College’s class of 2016 with a major in Urban Studies and concentration in Political Science. As a native of Chicago and resident of New York City, Dorsey loves to explore the multiple cultural facets of cities. She has a deep interest in social justice issue especially those relevant to urban environments. Contact Dorsey at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post There’s a New Environmentally Conscious Way to be Buried appeared first on Law Street.

At this point, the disbelief that Donald Trump could actually win a primary has worn off. But worry still remains for many, especially after hearing about Trump’s support of waterboarding and other more severe forms of torture. Other candidates such as Cruz and Rubio were also in support of waterboarding in the most recent Republican debate. But these candidates’ desire to be tough on terrorism seems to only be a test of masculinity, leaving basic human rights unrecognized.

At recent debates, Ted Cruz spoke in support of waterboarding in an all-means-necessary approach to interrogation; Rubio took a similar approach. The collective opinions of these three candidates has ignited backlash from their own party, and again raises awareness of the dissonance within the Republican Party as its candidates endorse compromising measures. Senator John McCain had to distance himself from the words of these candidates, and remind them of the severe impact of torture. He responded to their statements in a Senate address, highlighting:

It might be easy to dismiss this bluster as cheap campaign rhetoric, but these statements must not go unanswered because they mislead the American people about the realities of interrogation, how to gather intelligence, what it takes to defend our security, and at the most fundamental level what we are fighting for as a nation.

One American already mislead by these comments is none other than Donald Trump’s son Eric Trump. In defense of his father’s torture stance, the younger Trump actually said that waterboarding was no different from hazing in frat houses across American college campuses.

These comments had several people doing a double take just to ensure he actually said those words. Eric Trump and these candidates want people to see torture as a sign of toughness, and candidates are able to capitalize off the fear and tragedy of Americans after terrorism attacks.

Infighting between the candidates over their toughness has occurred too–Donald Trump actually laughed when one of his supporters called Ted Cruz a pussy during his speech because Cruz’s support of waterboarding did not measure up to the strictness of Trump’s future plans for torture. After laughing, he went on to repeat the words of his supporter to his entire audience after laughing.

This long back and forth over the use of torture begs the question: is this a race for presidency or a contest in masculinity?

Dorsey Hill

Dorsey is a member of Barnard College’s class of 2016 with a major in Urban Studies and concentration in Political Science. As a native of Chicago and resident of New York City, Dorsey loves to explore the multiple cultural facets of cities. She has a deep interest in social justice issue especially those relevant to urban environments. Contact Dorsey at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Macho Enough to Torture?: Cruz, Trump, and Rubio All Weigh In appeared first on Law Street.

Rumor had it that Amazon would be opening 300-400 brick-and-mortar stores in the upcoming years this past Tuesday, according to a Wall Street Journal article. By Wednesday the original source admitted his words were not the plans of Amazon, but not without getting the hopes up of several reporters and many Americans old enough to remember Borders. The reality of a future with the perks of digital commerce and the advantage of neighborhood stores may be a short lived dream, but it is an indication that we are not completely sold on the idea of a future with total digital reliance.

The rumor all began with Sandeep Mathrani, CEO of General Growth Properties (GCP), a real estate investment trust that specializes in shopping malls. During an investor call, Mr. Mathrani reportedly said, “You’ve got Amazon opening bricks and mortar bookstores, and their goal is to open, as I understand, 300 to 400 bookstores.” The Wall Street Journal took Mr. Mathrani’s word about the stores, and soon other reporters were spreading the word about Amazon’s new plan for a bookstore on a corner near you. Just yesterday though, GCP distanced itself from comments made by the CEO. The company iterated that the CEO’s statements did not represent Amazon’s plans.

The first Amazon bookstore opened in Seattle this past November, so it is not hard to believe they could exist. In Seattle, Amazon’s store stocks its shelves with the most popular selling titles online. Similar to other bookstores, Amazon sells related products such as its own Kindles and even Bose headphones. Any items sold in the store match the price of items online, so the prices are not displayed on the actual books or anywhere next to the books in the store. Instead customers have to scan the books in the store or use an App on their phone to find out prices, which one visitor in Seattle found to be an “infuriating difference” in what first appeared to be a normal bookstore.

Why would Amazon even need bookstores though, especially if they were one of the reasons for the decline of so many bookstores a few years ago? Well, it has been interpreted as a new trend for online retailers. E-tailers such as Birchbox, Warby Parker, and Bonbons use retail stores as a way of expanding their brand name, while mall retailers welcome the companies to fill in the vacancies of traditional stores closing in their malls. Sometimes these physical stores only come in pop up form, but whether they are there for one day or five months, physical stores allow customers to try out the items they’re interested in purchasing. Amazon needs little help expanding the brand’s name, but the stores would be helpful in promoting its new Echo speaker and Fire TV.

Along with worrying whether the bookstores were indeed real, some blogs assured readers not to get their hopes up. However, this warning wasn’t because of the speculation about the actual bookstores, but rather because the bookstores would not resemble those of the past. Fast Company noted the bookstores as “part showroom/boutique, part warehouse, part pickup and shipping window, and, yes, part traditional bookstore.” In some respects the furor over the Amazon bookstores surfaced from our own expectations of the past to return. Bookstores were always more than just a place to buy books. They were alcoves in neighborhoods where all generations could lose themselves in the surrounding titles of narratives, cookbooks, historical novels, and other works. Hopefully, Amazon realizes mixing a little bit of the past with the future would not be such a bad rumor to prove true.

Dorsey Hill

Dorsey is a member of Barnard College’s class of 2016 with a major in Urban Studies and concentration in Political Science. As a native of Chicago and resident of New York City, Dorsey loves to explore the multiple cultural facets of cities. She has a deep interest in social justice issue especially those relevant to urban environments. Contact Dorsey at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post All the Best Fads Make a Comeback: Rumors of Amazon Stores appeared first on Law Street.

On the eve of the blizzard this past Friday, residents in Upper Manhattan’s Washington Heights and Inwood neighborhoods turned on their faucets only to discover brown to dark brown water flushing from their taps. What’s even more outrageous is that residents experiencing this problem had to turn to Twitter for answers and solutions. While it is a good example of how helpful social media can be during a small scale disaster, it did not make up for the fact that the NYC Department of Environmental Protection left many people with unreliable solutions during a time of emergency.

@NY1 brown water affecting many in Washington Heights/Inwood area.

— Britt Mitchell (@brittmitchell) January 22, 2016

What's wrong with the water in Washington Heights? This is happening all over the neighborhood. @NY1 pic.twitter.com/oGDf09pO7e

— David Corris (@DavidCorris) January 22, 2016

This is in the whole Washington Heights sections. No one gives us info. @NY1 @NYDailyNews @nycgov #NYC pic.twitter.com/pYZ8XbfgTq

— Carlos J. (@CJ10040) January 22, 2016

Local Councilman Mark Levine reported to local news station NY1 that Port Authority Bus Terminal in Washington Heights experienced a water leak causing an emergency shutdown and back flow in pipes. On Facebook he shared a message at 5 PM stating, “I have been in contact with the NYC Department of Environmental Protection…They have tested tap water, found it to be safe, and are currently flushing hydrant lines to remove discoloration.” The water was more than discolored, however, it contained sediment as well. The Department of Environmental Protection instructed people with brown water to run their cold water for a few minutes before using the water, and to report it to 311. However, local residents still found issues with their water after these statements, and continued to tweet about the water into the evening.

@NY1 Yeah we do…they keep telling us it's okay to drink…really?!?! pic.twitter.com/ibwJy4DAC5

— Alexandra Lifshin (@alexlifshin) January 23, 2016

nice cup of tea, you say? no. that's my tap water. @nyc311 @ny1 @nycwater @Gothamist pic.twitter.com/54xs7HUvyW

— Chelsea (@ChelseaAdewunmi) January 23, 2016

Even Levine expressed that the water in his own apartment still resembled a light brown after DEP’s solution stating, “I don’t think anyone would want to drink this.” So, it is concerning that the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) would suggest the water safe with these issues still happening, especially with a record breaking storm approaching the area.

@ny1 #nycwater stocking up on bottled water in Washington Heights Rite-Aid due to brown water on tap and snow. pic.twitter.com/MhnAPr01uz

— Dante Nicolello (@dantenicolello) January 22, 2016

It is still unclear what exactly caused the water leak at Port Authority although DEP spokeswoman Mercedes Padilla reported that it was not unusual. But the recent water crisis in Flint, Michigan makes this situation all the more alarming–trust for public officials remains low. On Monday, January 25, Amsterdam News reported the water supply safe. To ensure the public of its safety, Levine stated,

What is also undeniable is that New York City has one of the safest water supply systems of any big city in the country. Our city’s stringent testing protocols are known for their rigor and transparency. And anyone who is concerned about the safety of their tap water can request a free lead testing kit.

As seen in Flint, it is hard to regain the trust of citizens once they have been lied to, so it is important that officials offered these assuring words. But residents could have benefited from a premature warning from DEP or Port Authority of the initial disturbance in the water, especially with the news of the blizzard soon to hit that next morning. If anything, people should not be concerned about the safety of their water when the evidence clearly shows otherwise–whether the incident is taking place in NYC, Flint, or anywhere else.

Dorsey Hill

Dorsey is a member of Barnard College’s class of 2016 with a major in Urban Studies and concentration in Political Science. As a native of Chicago and resident of New York City, Dorsey loves to explore the multiple cultural facets of cities. She has a deep interest in social justice issue especially those relevant to urban environments. Contact Dorsey at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Wary Water Before the Storm: A Failure to Communicate in NYC appeared first on Law Street.

Now more than ever, families need to seriously weigh the financial pros and cons of universities. But there are some tools that can help–for example, the development of College Abacus, a website that makes it easier for students and their families to compare financial aid packages before applying to schools. College Abacus has been deemed the “Kayak” of college financial aid, but it’s always been controversial, and some schools have not allowed College Abacus to use their information. Schools such as Skidmore and Oberlin have lifted their original bans on the site, but others such as Harvard, Princeton, and California Institute of Technology Schools still block the site from using their information. While some of the concerns are warranted, schools are doing a disservice to their students by blocking the site.

When it comes down to it, college is an investment. While the profitable gains of the college experience remain immeasurable, the amount of debt students incur can easily be measured by families and graduates alike years after memories have faded. Since October 29, 2011 the Higher Education Act (HEA) has required colleges to provide a net price calculator on their websites. The price generated by these net price calculators gives an estimate of what families will pay for college minus grants and scholarships. The calculator bases its information off of similar data from students at that institution from the previous year. College Abacus helps students easily see these net prices together, and cuts down the time of entering the same information into multiple calculators on school websites.

Image courtesy of [SemperDoctus via Wikimedia]

Harvard, Princeton, and Cal Tech are not alone in their refusal to participate in College Abacus’s services. Schools have a right to worry about the site’s accuracy. The service sometimes takes similar questions from the different schools’ financial aid calculators and groups them together for comparison. At one point, College Abacus made a mistake when rephrasing a financial aid question for Hamilton College, which the co-founder of Abacus sorted out within 24 hours after the financial aid director of Hamilton reached out. The staff at Abacus welcomes concerns from financial aid officers, and relies on the schools for accuracy. But by opting out, schools block the site from accessing their net calculators.

Truly, students and their families are hurt when colleges and universities block Abacus. It has simply created a platform for families to compare the financial investment of college. Money may be the most objective differentiate between two schools for an individual family. The debate goes on for hours about the right environment, professors, dorms, location, etc between two schools, but comparing the potential net cost does not need to be an additional ordeal. In this new age of technology, universities should welcome tools creating more transparency for their future students.

Dorsey Hill

Dorsey is a member of Barnard College’s class of 2016 with a major in Urban Studies and concentration in Political Science. As a native of Chicago and resident of New York City, Dorsey loves to explore the multiple cultural facets of cities. She has a deep interest in social justice issue especially those relevant to urban environments. Contact Dorsey at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post College Abacus: Hurdles in Financial Aid Transparency appeared first on Law Street.

The right to privacy has always weighed heavily in the legalization of abortion. In the landmark Roe v Wade (1973) decision, the Supreme Court granted women the right to an abortion  under the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment. But, on January 1, a new regulatory law passed in North Carolina. The law requires doctors to send the ultrasounds of women receiving abortions between the 16-20th week of their pregnancies to the state Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), as a way to ensure abortions happen before the 20th week of pregnancy. The law leaves the doctors responsible for leaving off the patient’s identifiable information. But those in opposition of the law question its purpose and criticize its breach of privacy.

Since abortion became legal in 1973, states have been tasked with a responsibility to balance the rights of women’s choices and the rights of potential human life. A spokesman for Governor Pat McCrory of North Carolina suggests the new law protects women by ensuring medical professionals use proper safety precautions in procedures. However, at the same time it denies these women and their doctors privacy.

Many citizens of North Carolina feel betrayed by the bill because of a promise Governor McCrory made during his campaign. During a 2012 debate McCrory said he would not sign legislation on further abortion restrictions while governor. Yet, the new law also extends the waiting period for abortions from 24 hours to 72 hours.

Melissa Reed is president of Planned Parenthood Votes! South Atlantic, and has been vocal in opposition to this law. She contends that state officials already have access to ultrasounds and other patient statistical data through yearly inspections. That method of yearly inspections makes more sense than the law being enacted. Under the new law, the ultrasounds, along with the estimated gestational age, will be checked by a board certified obstetrician in the DHHS for compliance with the 20 week provision. Some tax payers don’t want state money to go to abortion, but they are instead now funding the paycheck of the person responsible for reviewing the ultrasounds of thousands of women.

People in support of the new legislation find solace in the protection of fetuses older than 20 weeks. The Daily Journal quotes Tami Fitzgerald, an anti abortion advocate in North Carolina, stating,

The whole purpose of this ultrasound provision is to be a check on the abortion industry to make sure they’re not violating the law and rights of these unborn babies that are older than 20 weeks to live.

Per the Supreme Court, states must weigh privacy against other legitimate interests–protecting women’s health and potential human life. But regulation on the part of protecting potential human life can be performed in a less abrasive way than mandating the collection of intimate health records. It undermines the privacy for which the Supreme Court granted protection to women for abortions in the first place.

Dorsey Hill

Dorsey is a member of Barnard College’s class of 2016 with a major in Urban Studies and concentration in Political Science. As a native of Chicago and resident of New York City, Dorsey loves to explore the multiple cultural facets of cities. She has a deep interest in social justice issue especially those relevant to urban environments. Contact Dorsey at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post North Carolina’s New Abortion Regulations are Fracturing Privacy appeared first on Law Street.

This 2016, Spotify should make a New Year’s resolution to not get slammed with any more lawsuits. The digital streaming network finished off 2015 with 75 millions users worldwide, over 25 million who pay for premium services, and a $150 million dollar lawsuit. David Lowery of the bands Cracker and Camper van Beethoven recently issued a class action lawsuit against Spotify for failure to properly pay royalties to its artists.

NPR posted the court filing from Lowery, which states,

Spotify’s egregious and willful violations of Plaintiff’s and the Class Members’ rights are highlighted in Spotify’s recent admissions regarding its failure to: (1) obtain licenses for the musical works it distributes and reproduces (thereby infringing multiple copyrighted works); and (2) compensate copyright owners for its use of their Works.

This lawsuit is just one battle in an ongoing debate between music publishers and streaming services., and the digital age may be transforming our music consumption too quickly for the law to keep up. There are usually two different types of copyright owners for every song streamed. The owner of the song is one, so usually the artist or the record company, and the other is the person who wrote the song or has rights as the publisher of the song. Undeniably, streaming services lack transparency as royalties get passed along to several middleman, then hopefully find their way into the hands of these different owners. Streaming services continue to strive for transparency however, citing most of their issues as the difficulties of obtaining rights.

David Lowery. Image courtesy of [Zopheus via Wikimedia]

Spotify openly admits to potential challenges in its royalty payment system. The company sets aside royalty funds for when a user streams a song and Spotify cannot immediately identify the rights holder. The suit argues that the retroactive compensation from the fund clearly shows Spotify’s negligence in obtaining proper license agreement and authorization prior to streaming songs. However, Spotify does make the claim that in the United States, “the data necessary to confirm the appropriate rightsholder is often missing, wrong, or incomplete” for songwriters.

In the U.S, the legal framework for songwriters has been around since 1941. Songwriters license their work to Performance Rights Organizations (BMI, ASCAP, and SESAC), who collect and negotiate songwriting royalties under a consent decree in a special rate court. Spotify seemingly does not have to negotiate with songwriters because the government sets the rates, but the framework is still admittedly complicated.

Lowery isn’t the first to have an issue with Spotify–in previous years, artists like Taylor Swift have taken the measure to remove their work from Spotify in protest of royalties. On Spoitfy’s Artists website, the streaming service explains its artist payout formula, which includes Spotify’s monthly revenue, artist and total Spotify streams, publishing owners, and royalty rate. The artists still have other deals they’ve agreed to with the record label, so they’re ok taking down their music from Spotify.

The payment of royalties admittedly is complicated. Maybe it is time for the court to modify the legal framework behind licensing music. The David Lowery case will undoubtedly reveal more about the future of music streaming as the ownership of music continues to change.

Read More: Streaming Music: Good Business or an Attack on Artists

Dorsey Hill

Dorsey is a member of Barnard College’s class of 2016 with a major in Urban Studies and concentration in Political Science. As a native of Chicago and resident of New York City, Dorsey loves to explore the multiple cultural facets of cities. She has a deep interest in social justice issue especially those relevant to urban environments. Contact Dorsey at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Spotify Faces a Class Action Lawsuit for Copyright Infringement appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, the U.S Census Bureau released the most recent data on new home sales for November 2015, and it’s mostly good news. But what does it mean for millennials buying homes–or is that trend as dismal as experts have worried it could be?

Let’s start with the good news: this November has seen the highest sales in new homes since November 2007, before the recession. The new home sales report shows a seasonally annual adjusted rate of $490,000, which eclipses the October 2015 $470,000 adjusted rate by 4.3 percent. In comparison to the $449,000 annual rate of November 2014, new home sale rates for this year are 9.1 percent higher. The median sales price for new homes in November 2015 was $305,000 with an average sales price of $374,900.

These numbers forecast solid growth, but do not account for the complete forecast of the housing market. New home sales are usually compared with the rates of existing home sales. Total existing home sales fell to 10.5 percent this past November, and the rate of existing home sales was at its lowest rate since April 2014, according to the National Association of Realtors (NAR.) The NAR attributes the drop in existing home sales to the new “Know Before You Owe” closing rule, which lengthens closing time on real estate sales. However, some commenters have reasoned that changes in closing time should not have accounted for the change this month.

Another interesting facet of the report is the correlation between the regional breakdown and trends in millennial home buying.  Since October, rates in new home sales have fallen the most in the Northeast, which is down 28.6 percent, and annually has seen a negative 13.8 percent change. However, rates in the West and South have seen the most growth this month and annually. Since October, Western region rates in new home sales have seen a positive 20.5 percent change and the South recorded a 19.4 percent change in sales since November 2014. These numbers correlate with data suggesting that half of the top ten city mortgage markets for millennial home buyers are in the South, as well as this new home sales list from 2014 for millennials, which is dominated by cities in the South and West.

In the end, the data supports forecast of moderate gains in housing activity. Improvement in new home sales numbers tend to be good news. Most importantly, millennials represent 32 percent of home buyers, which is the largest share in the market now–housing trends moving forward may be increasingly contingent on whether millennials continue to purchase.

Dorsey Hill

Dorsey is a member of Barnard College’s class of 2016 with a major in Urban Studies and concentration in Political Science. As a native of Chicago and resident of New York City, Dorsey loves to explore the multiple cultural facets of cities. She has a deep interest in social justice issue especially those relevant to urban environments. Contact Dorsey at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Housing Market and Millennials: What’s New? appeared first on Law Street.

This weekend the New York Times published the article “Get Home Safe,” My Rapist Said, in its opinion pages. In it, Alisson Wood tells the story of her boss raping her one night after work. She sought justice and solace from her company and the law, but only received dismissals. It was her word against her boss’s, and he claimed the situation was consensual, slut-shaming her. This situation is not uncommon for many other survivors of rape in America, victimized by a culture that often finds more fault in its victims than its perpetrators. Rape culture undermines the power imbalances at the core of rape by diverting attention away from why and how a rapist takes advantage of a person, and instead focuses on the character of the rape victim. For example, a boss takes advantage of an employee, a man takes advantage of a woman, or a cop takes advantage of a citizen. But last week, justice beat the power of rape culture. The prosecutor in the Daniel Holtzclaw case convinced a jury of the power imbalances of a white police officer raping African American women, and for Holtzclaw’s 29th birthday he received a recommended 263-year prison sentence.

Holtzclaw has been standing trial since November 2 after sexually assaulting 13 women in Oklahoma City. Jannie Ligons, a 57-year-old grandmother, went to the police after Holtzclaw attacked her on June 2,2014. Holtzclaw’s record revealed more allegations of rape, catching national attention and leading to his arrest. He faced 36 charges ranging from multiple counts of first degree rape to stalking and sexual battery. Officer Holtzclaw clearly underestimated the courage Ligons possessed as a survivor of sexual assault, and as a woman who could put trust in a police department whose own officer violated Ligons’s most basic right to her body.

Holtzclaw targeted 12 other African American women in a low income neighborhood ostensibly because of their vulnerability and unlikelihood to press charges. A couple of the victims were guilty of criminal activity of their own. The defense tried to use to this to its advantage by discrediting the victims and questioning why they did not contact the police after their assaults. But, who could those victims trust? The fact that they would likely not be perceived as “innocent victims” halted many from contacting authorities. “What kind of police do you call on the police?“–that was a question of one of the victims, who was only 17-years-old.

Race has factored into this case from the onset. Holtzclaw intended to protect himself by preying on these women with full knowledge of the future juxtaposed images of an All American Football player-turned-cop against black women. While the verdict supplies some justice to these victims, the all-white jury hardly seemed fair with about a 15 percent African American population in Oklahoma City.

Some activists see Holtzclaw’s verdict as a good milestone in a long history of black women as victims of sexual assault and domestic abuse. I agree with and welcome the justice served to this rapist. However, the lack of mainstream media attention garnered by this case validates all the fear these women had in reporting their rapes. It’s an indication of the intersectional obstacles women of color face in our lives, our problems often invisible, and rape culture even more prominent. So, it is an insult to see Holtzclaw’s tear stained face. Are those tears because he did not beat the odds? Or because white privilege did not win out and he did not get away with his exploitative assaults? As for me, I’d rather read through the brave testimonies of these 13 women in their own words than see his tears.

Dorsey Hill

Dorsey is a member of Barnard College’s class of 2016 with a major in Urban Studies and concentration in Political Science. As a native of Chicago and resident of New York City, Dorsey loves to explore the multiple cultural facets of cities. She has a deep interest in social justice issue especially those relevant to urban environments. Contact Dorsey at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Power of Justice: A Guilty Verdict for Daniel Holtzclaw appeared first on Law Street.

On December 4, Spike Lee’s much debated new film “Chi-Raq” hit theaters. Some viewers approached the trailer and storyline with trepidation in the wake of its release, as the movie satirically approaches the issue of gun violence in Chicago. After an innocent seven-year-old girl dies in crossfire between the Spartans gang, led by rapper Chi-Raq (Nick Cannon), and rival Trojans gang, led by Cyclops (Wesley Snipes), Lysistrata (Teyonnah Paris), Chi-Raq’s girlfriend, leads a sex strike. The plot is loosely based off the ancient Greek comedy “Lysistrata,” by Aristophanes. Dolmedes (Samuel L. Jackson), the narrator of the film, alludes to such a connection in the opening scene.

Initially, I found the idea of a satirical film about gun violence in Chicago misguided and disconcerting, especially considering the disheartening reality of tragic loss multiple Chicagoans endure everyday due to guns. The name of the film itself references a Chicago nickname dubbed several years ago, its origins unknown, which compares the homicides in Chicago to the death of Americans in the Iraq War. The movie begins with the statistic: between 2003-2011 American deaths totaled 4,424, while homicides in Chicago from 2001-2015 topped 7,356. This year alone there have been 2,221 shootings in Chicago, and police have confiscated 6,521 illegal guns.

Some of the consistently serious tones of the movie revolve around Irene (Jennifer Hudson) the mother of the seven-year-old girl killed. No one admits to the killing, and witnesses neglect to come forth about it. The painstaking silence is strikingly similar to the case of Tyshawn Lee–a nine-year-old boy lured into an alley and killed on November 7th in Chicago in gang retaliation against his father. Not until November 27th did police take Corey Morgan into custody and charge him with first degree murder.

“Chi-raq’s” fictional storyline blatantly mixed with reality during a powerful scene when Lysistrata and her sex strike supporters shouted the names of victims Trayvon Martin, Sandra Bland, and Tamir Rice, among other names. But missing from the list was Laquan McDonald who, sadly, actually might have made the movie had Chicago Police not withheld footage of his shooting for over a year.

“Chi-Raq” could not come at a more relevant time. Yet the lag in political action against gun violence almost ensures that any moment would be appropriate for “Chi-Raq.” While politicians discuss stricter gun regulations yet again on account of the tragedy in San Bernardino someone will lose a son, daughter, brother, or sister to a gun. However, terrorism or assault rifles will not necessarily be the blame for these deaths. Instead, Lee brings attention to the realities of gun violence not always discussed after mass shootings.

Some Chicagoans may dislike “Chi-Raq” for its failure to depict the lived reality of the South Side of Chicago in a genuine form, but it is not meant to be absolutely true to life. Kevin Willmont and Lee poetically infuse insightful criticism of the politics of gun regulations, the systemic oppression of the black community, and the impact of gang violence. The satirical foundation of the plot might not appeal to everyone and the movie has its issues, but the serious moments constantly remind viewers of the real-life victims. Now the only thing I find disconcerting about the film is its likeness to the front page news: how long will the same tragedies continue to happen until things change?

Dorsey Hill

Dorsey is a member of Barnard College’s class of 2016 with a major in Urban Studies and concentration in Political Science. As a native of Chicago and resident of New York City, Dorsey loves to explore the multiple cultural facets of cities. She has a deep interest in social justice issue especially those relevant to urban environments. Contact Dorsey at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chi-Raq: Not Just Satire appeared first on Law Street.