Omegle is an anonymous chat site commonly used by teens. With a tagline like “Talk to Strangers,” it’s no wonder the site has quickly become known for its rampant sexual, creepy, and flat-out weird interactions. However, one anonymous user began a chat last week with a frightening message revealing the latitude and longitude of Julissa Romero’s body, a 12-year-old girl the user claimed had missing for about five months. The message was met with a swarm of feelings by the online community  Reddit.com, where a screenshot of the chat was first posted.

Thanks Reddit

I later found out that it was all a hoax, but I have to admit, upon first learning about the message, I didn’t know how to react. Should I be outraged? Should I be saddened by the supposed death of this young girl? Should I be relieved that her family and friends might finally be able to have some closure and begin the healing process? Or, like the majority of the users on the thread, should I merely scoff and shrug it off as simply another faceless internet user yearning for some spotlight? Well as I soon discovered, this is the internet, and in the words of quite literally everyone with half a brain and an IP address, you just can’t trust it.

The problem is that there are more and more incidences of people saying stupid stuff online that gets them in trouble and requires police resources to solve. Remember the 14-year-old Dutch teen who was arrested this April for tweeting terroristic threats at American Airlines? This bored, little girl had no idea her information would then be sent to the FBI via American Airlines for a thorough investigation.

I was dumbfounded by the entire thing. She created a mysterious posting as a member of Al Qaida, and thought we’d all have a nice laugh while she got retweeted approximately a bajillion times? Did she really not think anyone would care?!

Thanks Mashable

Keeping that type of general stupidity in mind, I read through the Reddit thread hoping there would emerge some sort of answer to whether this heinous Omegle message was in fact real or fake. But as I continued scrolling, it seemed to become more and more apparent that the skepticism the internet has brought to the online population is winning out in most people’s minds. Posts quickly drifted toward sarcasm with references to bad 90’s horror movies, in which the cast is always full of dumb high school or college students and even touched on the necessity of the “token black guy.” And for a while there before I knew it was all a hoax, I actually forgot about the little girl in the story, who had supposedly been missing for almost half a year.

Thankfully, Henry Gomez, commander of the Salinas Police Department, confirmed later that afternoon that the Omegle chat clue was all a giant hoax. In fact, it couldn’t have been more wrong. Not only was there no dead body at the coordinates listed in the chat message, just as the amateur google-map investigators of Reddit figured, but the “missing girl” wasn’t really missing. Although at one point earlier this year she was listed as missing, authorities investigating the case have assured the public that Romero is now “alive and accounted for.“

While everyone can now breathe a sigh of relief knowing young Remero is still alive, the sensationalism created by this Omegle prankster and the desperate Dutch teen should not be overlooked. Although both scenarios ended up being hoaxes, they didn’t just disturb online communities, such as Reddit and Twitter. While the Omegle incident only involved one police department, the American Airlines threat took the attention of the FBI. Does no one else see the problem with this? Besides the fact that kids as young as fourteen are turning to false terrorist threats to amuse themselves, their “pranks” are taking the resources of crime-fighting organizations away from actual crimes. If you ask me, it’s time we encourage our young people to find some new hobbies.

—

Erika Bethmann (@EBethmann) is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Mike via Flickr]

Erika Bethmann

Erika Bethmann is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Omegle Murder Confession: Don’t Trust Everything You Read appeared first on Law Street.

After nearly six years of legal battles, Teresa Wagner was just granted a new trial against the University of Iowa College of Law. Wagner alleges she was looked over for a promotion because of her political beliefs. She first sued then Iowa Law Dean Carolyn Jones in 2009. She insisted that she was not considered fairly for a legal writing position at the law school due to the fact that she is a conservative, an open advocate of anti-abortion efforts, and a supporter of the nation’s largest pro-life organization, the National Right to Life Committee.

The evidence provided by Wagner’s attorney featured a statement by the Associate Dean, Jonathan C. Carlson, to former Dean Jones. Carlson stated, “frankly, one thing that worries me is that some people may be opposed to Teresa serving in any role, in part at least because they so despise her politics (and especially her activism about it.)”

Of course, it’s a horrible thought that a prospective employee was discriminated against because of their sexual orientation, skin color, or any other reason. As a fervent pro-choice advocate myself, I must say I’d be appalled I was looked over for a job because of my political views. It’s absolutely Wagner’s right to be considered based on merit, and merit alone. In addition to the comment from Carlson, the video of Wagner’s interview with the faculty was suspiciously erased shortly after their decision not to hire her. Jones, however, contended that Wagner was passed over because she had “preformed miserably in a presentation.”

Wagner’s case seemed to be doomed from the onset. Her original lawsuit against Jones, first filed in 2009, was met with indecision from the jury. While they agreed that Jones was clear of the political discrimination charge, the jurors admitted they could not decide if Wagner’s equal protection rights had been breached. Therefore, the judge ruled the second count a mistrial, but only after reassembling and questioning the jurors thoroughly. An appeals court review decided that the reassembly was considered improper questioning by the judge, seeing as the jurors had had the opportunity to be influenced during the short break through high speed technology like smart phones. As a result, Wagner will now have a new trial.

This technical back-and-forth seems to have clouded the real issue at the core of Wagner’s case. This case highlights the huge disparity in political representation among law school faculty. At the time of Wagner’s application for the legal writing job there was just one registered Republican on an Iowa Law faculty of about 50. This trend doesn’t seem to be specific to the University of Iowa. In 2005, the Georgetown Law Journal actually released a report claiming that “81 percent [of law school professors] gave wholly or mostly to Democrats, while 15 percent gave wholly or mostly to Republicans.” For some reason, law schools seem to favor liberal professors, or at the very least attract them. But why has this trend been able to fly under the radar, despite research on the issue? Institutions of higher learning, including the University of Iowa, have entire departments dedicated to “diversity,” but in what capacity? It seems to me that they have allowed themselves to be restricted by a narrow definition of racial, ethnic, or cultural diversity. Although I agree that these things are vital to incorporate in an education, what about diversity of thought?

Fortunately for employment-seeking conservative law profs, there are advocates speaking out on their behalf, and raising awareness about the lack of right-leaning voices in legal academia. Organizations, such as the Federalist Society, help combat the, “orthodox liberal ideology which advocates a centralized and uniform society” that they believe is dominating the legal profession and higher education. One of the ways it endeavors to shorten the gap is through its extensive network of conservative and libertarian intellectuals in the legal community.

An alternative possible solution could be a sort of affirmative action focusing on political affiliations. But as with the original concept of racial affirmative action, this idea invites the possibility that quotas eventually takes precedence over merit, effectively reversing the effects the law would seek to reform. Though this case brought up the lack of political diversity among law school faculty, this solution seems less than viable. Most can agree that reform is needed, but not to the point that courts have more of a say in the qualification of certain applicants than experienced university administration. Hiring processes need to be made more transparent while also retaining fair policies.

Like any hot-button political issue, there’s no easy solution. Differing views are, in academia, usually a good thing. Our nation’s law students have the right to be able to be exposed to viewpoints different than their own, debate the issues, and if needed, disagree with their instructors. Regardless of the outcome of Wagner’s new trial, I’m glad that this case has ignited a conversation about ideological diversity in legal education.

—

Erika Bethmann (@EBethmann) is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Dave Jones-one of many via Flickr]

Erika Bethmann

Erika Bethmann is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Iowa Law Legal Battle Sheds Light on Academic Diversity appeared first on Law Street.

Despite the uproar about some of the Supreme Court’s latest rulings, there was also recently a lesser-known progressive SCOTUS decision that deserves applause. The court decided to not hear two related challenges–Pickup v. Brown and Welch v. Brown–to California’s ban on LGBT conversion therapy. The Pickup suit was brought by David Pickup, a therapist and spokesperson for the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH); the plaintiff in the Welch case was Donald Welch, a San Diego pastor. The two suits were backed by religious and anti-LGBT groups in California, but because of SCOTUS’s dismissal, the ban on conversion therapy will go into effect.

In both Pickup and Welch, the plaintiffs claimed that developing adolescents have the choice between heterosexuality or homosexuality. They not only see LGBT orientation as a choice, but also as one that can be corrected and changed with treatment. These suits attested that the minors this ban applies to can reject their unwanted urges. They argue that counselors can help these children in the same way that fitness trainers and nutritionists help people who struggle with their weight. From this point of view, the plaintiffs argued that the ban violated the “constitutional rights of the counselors or parents.“

But what about the rights of the minors? Why weren’t they the ones being discussed in the appeal? Overall, the cases seemed to bypass the minors, who would actually be receiving this conversion therapy, and discussed mostly the rights of their narrow-minded parents or “counselors.” The appeal did claim that the minors firmly believed their same-sex attractions were wrong, unwanted, and correctable. But that being said, those minors could have also been heavily influenced by their families, conversion therapists, and others. It’s easy to agree that your sexual attractions are wrong when the adults you look up to–parents, societal leaders, and religious authorities–are telling you that you’re wrong.

There are also many scientific flaws in conversion therapy. Dr. Jack Drescher MD, a distinguished Fellow of the American Psychological Association, states, “not only is homosexuality ‘not a choice,’ as most efforts to try and change a person’s sexual orientation fail, but some attempts to change can cause harm or damage to an individual’s well-being.” Studies have found that there are no “methodologically sound” studies to support the use of sexual orientation conversion therapy, thus discounting any scientific proof to support these practices.

Furthermore, science has proven that, besides being completely ineffective at converting someone’s sexuality, these therapy techniques can result in permanent psychological and emotional damage to LGBT youth. Instances of societal prejudice and familial rejection have resulted in LGBT youth being nearly six times as likely to report high levels of depression, and more than eight times as likely to have attempted suicide. The pressure that closeted LGBT kids face from family to reject their feelings can be confusing and traumatic. Openly gay youths, or those that have admitted their urges and sought advice from parents, can be met with furious disgust, and even disowned. These reactions, especially from the people that are supposed to provide unconditional love, can be heartbreaking and life-threatening. Conversion therapy only prolongs and falsely validates these reactions.

This issue is tied to the Hobby Lobby case in a way, because some critics were worried that the precedent set in Hobby Lobby would “open the floodgates” to suits from companies asking for religious exceptions to laws. Fortunately, the judges explicitly stated in their decision that their ruling was unique to the specific contraceptive case. The decisions in Pickup and Welch serve as some indication that that will hold true. The Court’s decision not to hear those cases was handed down just moments before the Hobby Lobby decision, possibly proving that religious challenges are not going to end up a SCOTUS free-for-all. While Hobby Lobby certainly made more headlines, Pickup and Welch are incredibly important as well.

The decision on behalf of the Supreme Court not to hear the religious appeal to the ban on LGBT conversion therapy was not only a victory for gay, lesbian and transgender rights advocates, but also set an important legal precedent. In refusing the appeal, the court allowed the official prohibition to finally be enforced in California after being held up by these law suits. This law was the first of its kind, signed back in 2012, and was followed by similar legislation in New Jersey about a year later. In my opinion, no one can use guilt and anxiety to induce change, and call it therapy or counseling. In my book, and fortunately the Supreme Court’s as well, they’re just plain wrong.

—

Erika Bethmann (@EBethmann) is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [@mjb via Flickr]

Erika Bethmann

Erika Bethmann is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Good Call, SCOTUS: Conversion Therapy Banned in California appeared first on Law Street.

After nearly seven years of relatively little disruption, a Massachusetts abortion clinic was the site of a vivacious protest on Saturday. The protest was three times larger than the clinic’s normal crowd and took place within the confines of the now meaningless 35-foot buffer zone. Last Thursday’s Supreme Court decision in McCullen v. Coakley terminated Massachusetts’ buffer zones around abortion clinics in defense of protesters’ freedom of speech. A consequential storm of criticism from women’s rights groups followed. They posed the question of whether constitutionality should be the sole factor in a decision so influential.

Although I always find myself screaming on behalf of pro-choice advocates, I must admit that the Supreme Court’s ruling does follow the constitution in a very logical and technical sense. But should the Constitution be the final word? Pro-choice activists across the country certainly don’t think so.

The Ruling

SCOTUS’s decision to strike down the buffer zones stemmed from their broad definition of anti-abortion advocates’ free speech. Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “here the Commonwealth has pursued interests by the extreme step of closing a substantial portion of a traditional public forum to all speakers,” referring to sidewalks where protesters typically congregate. Eleanor McCullen, the grandma-esque poster woman for abortion opponents, argued that the buffer zones were unnecessary because the exchanges they sought to restrict were peaceful, not violent. However, an abortion opponent could just as easily whisper a dangerous threat as they could shout it.

Justice Scalia pointed out that the close, personal interactions being defended by this ruling were a perfect example of what the First Amendment is intended to protect–the right to try to persuade others. He even went on to compare these conversations to protests that occur in other scenarios, such as protesters outside the Republican National Convention or voting stations.

At this point, I know I was not alone in thinking: did he really just compare getting an abortion to filling out a ballot? It’s not like choosing a political party. It’s not a choice you can alter or change with time. It’s a choice that will change your life forever and not one that should be taken lightly. It’s a choice that you should be so firm in that a peaceful chat outside a clinic would not persuade you to change it. It’s a choice that will affect you for the rest of your life. Most importantly, its a personal choice, not one subject to public discussion and attack.

Yes, I said “attack.” Just because it’s not screaming, loud, and belligerent, doesn’t make it polite or okay–harassment can take many forms. For example, most anti-abortion protesters shame patients silently with posters calling them killers, or with pictures of living, dead, or mutilated babies. The Boston Globe shared a statement from a young woman entering the aforementioned Massachusetts clinic on Saturday. She said, “you have to walk through this circle of people staring at you and talking to you and judging you…it’s very intimidating.” This shaming can bring as much emotional pain as any violent act.

Equally as interesting is the Supreme Court’s choice to eliminate these safe zones around abortion clinics, while still retaining their own buffer zones around the courthouse. The Supreme Court’s most recent regulation on their own buffer zone states:

The term ‘demonstration’ includes demonstrations, picketing, speechmaking, marching, holding vigils or religious services, and all other like forms of conduct that involve the communication or expression of views or grievances, engaged in by one or more persons, the conduct of which is reasonably likely to draw a crowd or onlookers.

In fact, the closest public place where protesters would be allowed to hold demonstrations is 252 feet from their front doors. So, not only do the hypocritical justices have their own buffer zone, but it is more than seven times that of the Massachusetts clinics. The irony is truly nauseating.

What the Supreme Court should have considered:

• History: In 1994, two staff members at Planned Parenthood clinics in Brookline, MA, were killed by shooter John C. Salvi. He went on to injure five more people and also shot up another clinic in Virginia, where he fled to after the initial crime. No one should approach protesters, especially abortion opponents in Massachusetts, with the naivety that they will always remain peaceful. The buffer zone was not full-proof, but at least it was some sort of safeguard to protect patients and staff.
• Success Rates of Buffer Zones: There haven’t been any dangerous altercations since 2007, when the 35-foot zone was enacted. The fact that these zones have worked shouldn’t be used as justification to terminate them, but rather to further their necessity.
• Success Rates of Anti-Abortion Protesters: The buffer zones did not make it impossible for abortion opponents to achieve their goal. Eleanor McCullen, the case’s plaintiff, testified to persuading about 80 women to forgo abortion procedures, even with the 35-foot buffer zone. Why should the Supreme Court make it easier for less-polite protesters to attack the patients, while peaceful abortion opponents are still accomplishing their objective?

The only silver lining is that the Supreme Court seems to realize the need for some safeguard for entering patients. They contended that there are alternative steps that the Massachusetts legislature can take to ensure the protection of clinic patients. But in the meantime, women in Massachusetts must forgo the protection, however seemingly scant, that they were once guaranteed before entering abortion clinics.

—

Erika Bethmann (@EBethmann) is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Talk Radio News Service via Flickr]

Erika Bethmann

Erika Bethmann is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sorry SCOTUS, Harassment Isn’t Free Speech appeared first on Law Street.

In 2013, the Pennsylvania State University Law School proposed splitting up its program into two separate, specialized schools–the Dickinson School of Law and Penn State Law. That plan has finally been approved by the American Bar Association and will be moving forward in 2015. Though the school’s law program had already been geographically divided between the State College and Carlisle, PA campuses, this change will establish two independently accredited law schools that are both still affiliated with Penn State.

After about a year of ABA review, the approval came with only a few, not-so-academic, suggestions. The ABA board actually offered construction and logistics advice, such as a suggestion to move the admissions office from the ground floor to the first floor, improving accessibility. In an interview last week, Interim Dean Gary Gildin remarked that he welcomed the constructive ideas from the ABA Board as an outside perspective that has had extensive experience with the creation of new schools.

The decision from the ABA was pretty unique. Unlike the accreditation of other new law schools, which typically includes a two-year probationary period, both of Penn State’s schools received “full and immediate” accreditation, according to Interim Dean Gildin. Back when Penn State originally chose to operate on two campuses, the ABA gave both accreditation. Therefore, the separation was not a very difficult process.

Both separately accredited schools will offer three-year J.D. and graduate law degree programs under The Dickinson School of Law of The Pennsylvania State University, and will draw on the unique location opportunities of each campus. What will be known as Penn State Law, located on the State College campus, will allow students to collaborate with the many different departments of Penn State’s liberal arts, science, education, nursing, and business schools. The Dickinson School of Law in Carlisle will retain its name but will use its proximity to Washington, D.C. and the Penn State Hershey Medical Center to focus on government and health care specialties.

Under Penn State’s old “one school, two campuses” theory, students were offered identical first-year curriculums at both campuses. In the following years, students had the option of continuing at their original campus or moving to the other in order to access different opportunities like special clinics or classes. While switching will become more difficult, the campuses will still be well connected. Penn State has long boasted how both campuses are connected by highly advanced communications technology. This has given them the ability to host audiovisual telecommunications between both locations; a characteristic that the interim deans have promised will stay the same even after the split.

This plan has seen little resistance from law societies, students, and faculty, despite the fact that each school will have a different dean and administration. According to my interview with the two interim deans, the catalyst for the split came from their appreciation of the rapidly changing legal market. According to Interim Dean James Houck, in recognition of rapidly declining admissions across the board, Penn State’s law program endeavored to “most effectively deliver what we have to offer students.” Dean Gildin explained that the separation of schools will be like a form of “home-rule.” Each one will have the opportunity to be more nimble, agile, and reactive.

It’s easy to see the merit in producing two more specialized schools that can easily adapt to the fast paced, constantly changing legal job market. Currently, there is just one administration, so any alterations or amendments must be checked and cleared between two different campuses. This “two schools” plan, which will begin in 2015, creates more independence for each program. And rather than being forced to find a academic middle ground between two schools, each program will be able to let its strengths shine.

This is yet another attempt among law schools across the nation to solve their waning enrollment statistics. While some schools like the Charleston School of Law are being bought out by corporate, for-profit, conglomerates like InfiLaw, others like Penn State are devising innovative alternatives. Not only is Penn State retaining its individuality in the face of a downturn in the law school market, but it is actually distinguishing itself in an industry that is definitely in need of such creative ingenuity.

—

Erika Bethmann (@EBethmann) is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Penn State via Flickr]

Erika Bethmann

Erika Bethmann is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Law School Disruptor of the Week: Penn State’s Two Law Schools appeared first on Law Street.

Argentinian President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner declared Thursday that her country would not pay back its $1.5 billion debt to American Paul Singer’s NML Capital Ltd., after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Argentina must pay back its loans. The ruling was meant to finally put an end to a decade-long dispute concerning loans Argentina received during its 2001 economic crash. While it is easy for the U.S. courts to simply demand full repayment, plus interest, this decision could prove disastrous for Argentina.

Argentina’s government has made it very clear that being forced to pay off these old debts in one fell swoop could land them in a second economic crisis. Argentina had originally defaulted on nearly $100 billion and has $24 billion remaining unpaid. Therefore, with the precedent set in this case, its debt holders may be much more inclined to sue for the full repayment and interest of those debts. Unfortunately, that amount of money accounts for almost all of the Argentinean Central Bank’s foreign reserves, which would leave the country penniless. Even worse, the Supreme Court’s decision specified that Argentina would not be permitted to continue paying current “restructured” debts until these old ones were taken care of.

Argentina is already seeing the negative ramifications of this ruling. The anticipation of Fernandez de Kirchner’s non-compliance alone caused a swift economic drop in Argentina’s top three stocks: Merval, Yacimientos Petrolíferos Fiscales, and Edenor Clientes. Given that those three companies have seen some of the few economic wins since the 2001 crash, such losses could hit pretty hard. If Argentina does pay, the money used would be taken from a pool of national subsidies that have helped encourage economic independence since 2001. Argentina would therefore not only lose foreign financial support, but also bankrupt its domestic coffers and ruin the morale of its people — something a country in crisis can never afford.

The final aspect of the Supreme Court’s ruling leaves Argentina especially vulnerable. It ruled that the American debt holders are able to force Argentina to disclose other property around the world, leaving the country with basically no alternate resources. This option makes it even easier for the holders to aggressively pursue what they’re owed. Even more importantly, the debt holders could reveal critical assets, like military resources, that could limit Argentina’s ability to protect itself and its allies.

After over a decade of waiting to be repaid for their debts, the U.S. holders may seem justified in such a harsh and unyielding proposal. Even with genuine promises from President Fernandez de Kirchner to comply with negotiations, this course might still be justified.

But here’s where the hypocrisy comes in.

This ruling is coming from the U.S. perspective, a view that sees all debts as impossible to default on, and one that Argentina is definitely not privy to. While this could just be another symptom of America’s excessive culture, there is actually some truth behind the statement. According to economist Alan Greenspan, “The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that.” So, because America’s leaders accrued debt only in U.S. dollars, it is technically impossible to default on any loans. The keyword there being technically.

Anyone can see that this is neither a very sound defense nor a good economic plan. And for those who don’t, history can be very enlightening. Germany followed this logic in the early 20th century and ended up with such high inflation that its paper money was more valuable as kindling than currency. A nation in $5.6 trillion of debt and abiding by this blind logic is maybe not the best judge for other countries in debt. Perhaps America should step back and consider the fact that it owes China and Japan a combined $2.4 trillion, and would definitely appreciate some leniency if it were in Argentina’s position.

—

Erika Bethmann (@EBethmann) is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Ken Teegarden/Seniorliving.org via Flickr]

Erika Bethmann

Erika Bethmann is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Argentinian Debt and American Hypocrisy appeared first on Law Street.

The British Columbia Law Society just voted 3,210 to 968 to reverse its  April decision accrediting the new Trinity Western University Law School. The original accreditation decision came under fire because Trinity has a Christian covenant that serves as a mandatory contract students and staff are required to sign. The problem with this covenant? It blatantly discriminates against the LGBT community.

Under the covenant, all school affiliates are prohibited from a sexual relationship “that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman.” If they are found to have violated this covenant, or even fail to report violations by fellow students or staff, they may be expelled or terminated. The school has used a freedom of religion argument to defend its offensive and harsh rule.

In the most recent vote, 77 percent of the BC Law Society voted against TWU Law receiving accreditation, and although this vote is non-binding, it definitely affects the final decision. The BC Law Society is not alone in protesting the school’s covenant. The Law Society of Upper Canada in Ontario also voted against the accreditation. The Nova Scotia Barristers Society only granted conditional acceptance; the terms of that acceptance were that TWU either changes the covenant or gives students the option to not sign it.

TWU contends that its freedom of religion allows it to enact this covenant, and even launched court actions in British Columbia, Nova Scotia, and Ontario to defend it. Statements made by the institution have gone so far as to say that the provincial law societies rejecting the school’s accreditation are denying the concept that lawyers can participate in society while holding any religious beliefs. They also argue that the rulings are based solely ony public opinion, making them inherently unfair. But three different provincial law societies amount to thousands of votes, which seems like a very popular opinion, so the school’s argument seems a bit far fetched to me.

A similar case came before the Canadian Supreme Court in 2001 concerning the accreditation of TWU’s graduates and the court ruled in the school’s favor. Bob Kunn, Trinity’s president, even used this fact as a defense for the school’s covenant, saying, “the Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court in the country, comprised of the best legal minds, and their decisions should be respected.” I find this point especially laughable given that the school’s covenant is discriminating against an entire community that has been protected by that same court for eleven years. How can Trinity preach about freedom of religion when it forces students and staff to sign a contract that specifies their personal beliefs and punish students for violating the beliefs it deems correct?

Even more alarming is what this covenant could mean for Trinity’s future law graduates. In my eyes, this anti-gay covenant promotes further discrimination beyond just school enrollment. It has the potential to subliminally teach graduates that the LGBT community is somehow not worth their time as lawyers. Even worse, these future lawyers may have an extra barrier to employment in British Columbia, where gay marriage is now commonplace.

It is important to note that Trinity Western is not alone in its initiative to exclude the LGBT community from enrollment. In the United States, the supremely Christian Liberty University earned fifth place on a list of the top five most conservative schools in the United States. In addition to teaching youth earth creationism, the school also bans the admission of openly gay students. Many other universities with anti-gay policies, such as Patrick Henry College, are home to a silent underground LGBT community. Queerphc is a blog specifically dedicated to gay Patrick Henry students that states, “Patrick Henry College maintains a requirement of non-advocacy for enrolled students in regards to LGBTQ issues.”

Although this discriminatory spirit against homosexual and transgender students exists all over North America, the tides seem to be changing for the better in America. President Obama just announced that he will sign an executive order prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination. Many people, myself include, haven’t paid much attention to this announcement because frankly, we thought it was already established. Although there’s plenty of progress that needs to be made, both the US and Canada are on the right track in most respects. Hopefully Canada can take a lesson from its southern neighbor, use its constitutional history of LGBT acceptance as a basis, and show Trinity Western that discrimination in any form is both illegal and wrong.

—

Erika Bethmann (@EBethmann) is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Syowoe via Flickr]

Erika Bethmann

Erika Bethmann is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Canadian Law Societies Reject Trinity Western’s Anti-Gay Policies appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, citizens in both Washington, DC and Salt Lake City, Utah, poured out to celebrate gay pride at annual parades in their respective cities. In DC the mood was good. Jake Hudson, a DC local and 27-time parade attendee, actually sat it out this year, claiming this was because he was more than happy with the District’s stance on gay rights. But in Salt Lake City, the exact opposite happened. This year’s participants faced resistance from an unexpected and shameful source — the police department. An unnamed police officer refused his assignment to protect parade supporters and ensure safety. Although the Salt Lake City Police Department condemned his choice, the officer still serves as a prime example of Utah’s history of anti-gay rights legislation.

Gay Rights in Utah

Utah’s predominantly Mormon constituency tends to argue against same-sex marriage. Although some progressive groups in the community now openly support LGBT initiatives, the more conservative majority remains dominant. For this reason, gay rights legislation in Utah has had little success and far too many failures. Utah’s gay community has seen no substantial legislative victories, with the exception of a 17-day lift on Utah’s same-sex marriage ban last December. LGBT couples in Utah are even prohibited from adopting children.

Gay Rights in DC

On the other side of the country, DC’s LGBT community has won countless political gains. Gay and lesbian couples have had the right to marry since 2009, and they won the right to adopt, use IVF, and hire surrogates in March 2013. In addition to these major legislative wins, the community is protected from hate crimes and sexual orientation discrimination. DC is the poster-child for gay and lesbian rights in the U.S. “I hate to say it, but we have just about everything we could want,” said Hudson.

The mayoral race in DC pretty much proves the fact that choosing a candidate based solely on shallow prejudices is no longer acceptable. There is both an openly gay candidate, Independent David A. Catania, and a candidate with a history of strong support for LGBT causes, Democrat Muriel Bowser. Based on their platforms, it is clear that both candidates would be more than willing to pass pretty much any LGBT legislation that comes their way. For example, Bowser vowed to vote against Mayor Grey’s DC United soccer stadium proposal that would have displaced the DC LGBT Center. She also hired Bo Shuff, an openly gay campaign manager who has worked in the past for the LGBT rights groups Equality Ohio and the Human Rights Campaign. Therefore, DC’s LGBT community is focusing more on the more day-to-day policies of each candidate, rather than choosing the one candidate who might be in favor of extending gay rights. Nonetheless, all the advancements inside the District mean much more when you pair them with the lack thereof  in Utah. DC’s equality-driven environment is a prime example for the rest of the country  to emulate.

In a dichotomy such as this, where two sides of the country differ so drastically on such a prominent issue as gay rights, the only solution can be found in education and dialogue. There may still be a chance to encourage Utah’s youth to join the cause, while it may prove harder to change the minds of the state’s older constituents. Perhaps those who made the DC movement so successful could shift their efforts toward the country’s less progressive states.

Although it is undeniably frustrating to see two sides of a single country be so out of sync with each other, it is important to remember that social change across independent states never happens simultaneously. The horribly slow civil rights process in the South in the fifties and sixties is often blamed on tradition and prejudice. It’s fair to say the same thing is happening with gay rights in conservative areas of the country.

But there is hope in the region. Both Colorado, Utah’s neighbor, and Washington, are very progressive on many issues, ranging from the legalization of marijuana to voting for President Obama in 2012. Washington, Oregon, California, and New Mexico have already established legal gay marriage, sparking a dialogue in Utah’s western region. Like dominos, the spread of liberal causes is influenced by neighboring states. Hopefully the Utah domino is soon to follow.

—

Erika Bethmann (@EBethmann) is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Guillaume Paumier via Flickr]

Erika Bethmann

Erika Bethmann is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post DC and Salt Lake City Gay Pride Parades Reveal National Split on LGBT Rights appeared first on Law Street.

Both business and law school students across the country will almost undoubtedly learn about mergers and acquisitions inside the classroom. However, some students at the University of Maine are about to get some real world experience with these concepts. Plans to merge the university’s law and business degree programs were leaked last week in a report created by a group of concerned professors.

The details are still tentative. It’s unclear whether the university will simply consolidate the schools under one roof, or go so far as to have teachers and students from both schools combine to form an independent school with one dean. Despite these muddled, yet crucial specifics, Maine’s motivation to bring together these two schools is quite clear. With law school applicants dwindling amid high student debt and the depressingly crowded job market, schools are doing whatever they can to keep their law programs alive; even if that means being unconventional in an industry that prides itself on its traditional nature.

Admittedly, there are areas of overlap between law and business that could definitely be acceptable and beneficial to both. With the globalization trend that has continued to grow in the twenty-first century, it is no surprise that employers strongly desire the most well-rounded student. After all, the more skills and knowledge a student possesses, the more inherently valuable they are. Chief Executive Officer at the Bernstein Shur law firm in Portland, Pat Scully, showed his support for this initiative saying, “It will be easier for students to draw on the best of both offerings.” Working with business-minded faculty would allow future lawyers to gain insight and better relate to clients in ways that law professors simply aren’t accustomed to teaching.

But that is not the part with which the teachers find problems. They are concerned that during this planning process the teachers and students that will actually have to put the plans in motion are being ignored. This worry stems from the fact that the planning is being conducted by a third party, the Parthenon Group. Moving forward, it will definitely prove crucial how involved the educators are in this merger because they are the ones that will either accept it with open arms, or coldly reject and challenge this new system. In essence, however they are treated and react could either create a successful precedent and help remedy the current law school crisis, or just add to the list of ill-fated solutions already offered.

For example, the Charleston School of Law found itself in a similar crisis when it was discovered that their founders took out profits totaling $25 million in 2013. Recently, a presumed angel in the form of a company called the InfiLaw System, stepped in and offered to purchase the school. This would add to the other three for-profit law schools they have acquired. While many argue that InfiLaw is the only option to keep Charleston’s doors open, it seems in many ways the lesser of two evils. InfiLaw, like Charleston, is a for-profit company that builds other for-profit law schools; a characteristic that makes many students and community members wary of supporting the sale. They are are understandably skeptical of the school being handed off to another money-hungry group that will just put them back into the same situation. Other concerns stem from allegations that claim InfiLaw is a “diploma mill” with admission standards lower than normal because they are a profit driven organization.

These two solutions for keeping law school programs alive during this ongoing crisis provide insight on what seems to be a step in the right direction. The University of Maine has found a feasible resolution that actually predicts a positive outcome for students and may even help to set them ahead of the undeniable competition, especially from Ivy Leagues. On the other hand, schools like Charleston seem to be haphazardly throwing their programs into the hands of whomever will leave the school’s remaining founders with the optimal profit. Unfortunately, it seems in both cases the teachers and students are not being awarded the consideration they deserve as the heart of the system itself. This oversight that could prove fatal in both situations.

—

Erika Bethmann (@EBethmann) is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Jesse Michael Nix via Flickr]

Erika Bethmann

Erika Bethmann is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Law School Disruptor of the Week: University of Maine to Merge Law and Business appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court set software industry precedent on Monday with the unanimous reversal of a 2006 ruling in the patent infringement suit between Akamai Technologies Inc. and Limelight Networks Inc. Akamai had originally testified that Limelight encouraged its customers to violate an Akamai patent by copying technology to improve website traffic efficiency. The initial ruling was made under the doctrine of “induced” infringement, which tests liability by determining if the violator “knowingly induces others” to fully commit the crime, rather than first party infringement.

With five dissenting votes the decision was one of much dispute because it did not fit the parameters of classic patent infringement. In December 2013, the Solicitor General advocated a review of this ruling based on the concept of “divided” infringement. This notion challenged the traditional definition of patent infringement, which typically includes a purposeful violation committed by a single entity. In the case of Akamai v. Limelight, multiple independent users took some steps toward infringement, thus muddling the controversy and ultimately leading to this week’s reversal. Many top tier companies, such as Facebook, Google, and Oracle supported the reversal, asserting that they would have faced mountains of claims and skyrocketing litigation costs across the board had Akamai won the suit.

The complexity of this case’s nuances bring up greater concerns about the growing disparity between the context of the Patent Act’s conception more than two centuries ago, and today’s technological advances. Copying someone else’s invention is now as simple as downloading a file with the click of a button. Had Limelight been defeated, we would have seen a staggering increase in the already heavy burden of patent infringement suits on the technology community.

The nature of the patent industry has developed in the twenty first century from tangible products to cloud-based software. According to the Wall Street Journal, as of 2012 technology patents accounted for more than half of all the patents granted that year. This trend in software research and development has essentially turned patents into the type of invaluable investments that brick-and-mortar manufacturing used to be.

Due to this change it seems that trolling is no longer exclusive to social media. We’ve seen the rise of non-practicing entities (NPEs), more commonly known as “patent trolls”. These players work to build and enforce litigation for other people’s patents in the effort to collect licensing fees. The reversal of the Akamai v. Limelight case lifted helped to restrict the possible business of this secondary patent industry that typically hindered innovation by tying up inventors in legal trials.

It seems to me that while top companies, like Apple and Google, continue to push the limits of technology, they are simultaneously presented with a paradoxical challenge. As the only safeguard against having their ideas stolen by or credited to others, patents continue to serve as the blood of the technology industry.

On the other hand, patent trolls and entrepreneurs that use patent licensing business models to prematurely buy, sell, and trade patents have effectively altered the industry. In a way, patents are no longer fostering innovation but are rather sold to the highest bidder who may not actually create the best product, despite their sole rights to it. Unfortunately, these third-party entities of patent trolls and NPEs are driven by money, and when money is paired against the dreams of inventors, money typically wins. This is especially true with startups that don’t have the gross capital and market share of companies like Apple. In the end, true innovators, and the consumer audience they hope to serve, are the ones that tend to be on the losing end.

—

Erika Bethmann (@EBethmann) is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Alexandre Dulaunoy via Flickr]

Erika Bethmann

Erika Bethmann is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Makes it Easier to be a Patent Troll appeared first on Law Street.