The NFL regular season is coming to a close, and with it, a plethora of fantasy-football dreams. Typically, friends draft a team of their favorite stars before the start of the season and depending on their team’s performance, a fantasy dueler can win bragging rights or bets made within the group. Except today, what started as a competition among friends has evolved into a multi-million dollar enterprise. Websites like DraftKings and FanDuel have capitalized on this competition by changing the fantasy landscape. These sites hold weekly competitions allowing users to choose players weekly for a fee. Although this option bypasses the heartache of seeing a number one draft pick go down with a season-ending injury, this type of competition raises some interesting concerns. Instead of bragging rights, friends can compete for millions of dollars against thousands of players across the globe by depositing cash for a particular contest. This sounds wonderful on paper, except it also sounds like gambling, too. Read on and find out whether you should cosign your fantasy involvement.

 What’s the latest news in the fantasy world?

Like the fantasy pro, I’ve endured the pleasure and heartbreak that fantasy football conjures. For instance, two weeks ago week I won $500. Nevertheless, the excitement that a touchdown catch enlivens is comparable to blackjack. The rush in seeing the craps table explode with shouts of hope and trembles of fear is similar to the anxiety of watching the player that you almost drafted “go-off” for three touchdowns. Although there are plenty of gambling outlets for duelers like myself to feast on, discouragement kicked in after reading this article about the Denver Broncos signing a partnership with Draftkings. Let’s face it, it wouldn’t be fair if the number one offense was in cahoots with the fantasy source. Although it’s doubtful that Peyton Manning gets a call during the game to throw an interception, these competitions craft an accessible outlet for fantasy football, which inadvertently targets kids and young adults to compete/bet/win. That worry grew after researching the inner-workings of these one-day fantasy events.

As my fellow New York Law School alum Andrew Blancato correctly noted in his article about fantasy sports gambling, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) outlaws online sports gambling. The fine distinction is based on skill and chance. But when did this all begin? Years ago, fantasy sports was limited to drafting teams before the season and hoping your team excelled in their respective positions. Today a user can bet online anywhere from 25 cents to upward of a thousand dollars on his team’s weekly performance. When did Football Sunday transform into caring more about the points a player scored, rather than the outcome of the game itself?

Image courtesy of Evangelos Siozos

When did fantasy become financial?

In July 2009, Nigel Eccles and Tom Griffiths altered the fantasy sports arena by launching their newly minted one-day fantasy competitions. Eccles, the CEO of FanDuel, based his idea on a simple premise: Letting people pick professional athletes daily and bypassing the debilitating effects of injury risks associated with season-long tournaments. Instead of one bite at the apple, these businesses capitalize on multiple game-day bites.

In 2010, Allen Tippy explained the phenomena that recently started interrupting your favorite TV or radio show with a 30 second advertisement.  “Fantasy is the steak,” Mr. Lowitz says. “We just want to be the mashed potatoes on the side.” After gorging on the traditional fantasy platter, Tippy made the change to one-day fantasy competitions.

I search out the weak players…I played in the same traditional fantasy baseball league with a group of lawyers from Mobile, Alabama for about 15 years.

That’s right. The success of one-day fantasy sports is semi-driven by the fantasy fanatics, those who play and switch their line-ups with 30 seconds to spare before the game begins. In fact, by employing these modern tactics, a one-a-day dueler can exploit an opponent’s weakness by staying alert of all injuries and penalties that keep a player sidelined. Interestingly, this awareness sounds just like skill, except in one-a-days there are a few caveats.

For example, unlike traditional gambling site, there is a higher commission taken out by the one-day fantasy servicer. Further, what separates a winner from the host of losers requires beating 60 percent of them to make a profit. Eccles calls it “fantasy for the ADD generation.” Mr. Eccles hits it on the nose, considering FanDuel paid out roughly $500 million this year alone.

After FanDuel captured 70 percent of the daily fantasy sports market, DraftKings snatched the remaining 25-30 percent. Fast forward four years: these simple startups have catapulted to infamy and success. In fact, the Fantasy Sports Trade Association acknowledged that about $1.7 billion is spent each year on fantasy sports in the U.S. and Canada. Couple this with an infinite pool of investors and big-name endorsers and one is left to wonder if any regulatory measures have been taken to ensure fair play.

So…is this even legal?

In 2006, Congress passed the UIGEA, which basically outlawed any online sports gambling that relied strictly on chance instead of skill. Whether or not fantasy sports are chance- or skill-related is a question for Socrates; however, what has been done since 2006 is quite startling, especially considering the mammoth explosion of this business. Vice Sports explained it best:

The debate over the legality of DFS revolves around the definition of skill versus chance. DFS games fall somewhere in between pure games of skill (chess, checkers) and pure games of chance (lottery, bingo). Picking a winning lineup involves a level of skill, intelligence, and talent that can be improved but also, Peyton Manning could tear his ACL in warm-ups and sorry, bro, your lineup is done.

Great, so playing fantasy sports involves both a touch of skill and a dash of luck. Easy, done. But some questions still linger. For example, since 2006, the marketing landscape changed, technology evolved, and fifth graders were given cell phones. So, what exactly is going on?

On December 2, 2014, lawyers lodged formal complaints against FanDuel in Florida Federal Court. The allegations included claims of deceptive practices by misleading customers, which tiptoes the line into fraudulent territory. Basically, FanDuel targeted customers through its promise to double any money deposited into its website. Yet, its “double your deposit” promotion didn’t double its customers’ deposits upon joining. Instead, if a user deposited $200, her money was entered into a formula, which requires a contestant to spend $5,000 in order to receive the initial $200 promised payback. This wasn’t the only lawsuit targeting the fantasy giants.

That’s when I was introduced to Christopher Langone, who filed pleadings in Illinois Federal Court to challenge the winnings of Patrick Kaiser, a FanDuel enthusiast. Months later, Langone filed another action against DraftDay.com and bypassed any jurisdiction issues by filing in San Antonio, Texas, DraftDay’s state of incorporation. What initially seemed like a theoretical query based on whether fantasy sports involved more skill than chance, created a battle of mythical proportions, perfect for the great professors who teach me.

What is being done?

In short, nothing yet. Some Federal Courts have reacted, using the judiciary power bestowed upon them to influence states to strike down fantasy football in Montana, Louisiana, Washington, Iowa, Arizona, and Puerto Rico. Or take Florida for example, where state law technically bans the “fantasy phenomenon,” and makes playing it a misdemeanor. But other than political riffraff and textualist toils over what chance and skill really are, the main concern for fantasy-player welfare has dissipated. As Mike Florio puts it,

In what would be a bizarre twist on point shaving, coaches and players could in theory be bribed to ensure that certain players will generate significant production, or that certain players will be shut down. Getting to coaches and assistant coaches who control the offensive game plan would be the most efficient approach. It also would help to grease defenders who would be inclined to slip on an invisible banana peel, springing a specific player for a touchdown or two. Or four.

Florio’s concerns express the same disbelief I have. Further, his article was written in July, way before Peyton endorsed Draftkings and Tom Brady joined DailyMVP.

Fanduel pays out 1 million dollars in prizes per day. Join my 1-day league http://t.co/oTvV4dzNZE

— Vince Wilfork (@wilfork75) August 23, 2014

With more and more players signing onto these fantasy startups, maybe it’s time to start paying attention to the inconspicuous tweets of NFL players. It’s not that Wilfork would miss a tackle to spring a runner 50 yards, it’s that he might be tempted to do so in order to capitalize on the same organization paying him to tweet.

Conclusion

Greed takes many forms. After witnessing the fall of the real estate market, we all saw the destructive nature of our fellow man. Like much of the law, Congress has slowly reacted to recent changes in technology. Today, kids and adults have online access at their fingertips. Although this doesn’t fit the bill as a pressing concern, it could become so. Anyone can click to verify that they are 18 years old in order to play on these sites. Further, not an iota of regulatory action has been taken since 2006. Although it is too early for the unforeseen consequences to materialize, it might already be too late to ensure that they don’t. Alas, chance and skill can only get a fantasy dueler so far. My hope is that there’s no one whispering in the players’ ears to strike that balance.

Resources

Primary

 Denver Broncos: Draft Kings, Broncos, Sign Partnership

Additional 

Law Street Media: Fantasy Sports: Good Fun or Illegal Gambling?

Wall Street Journal: Everyday fantasies

Boston: Single-Day Fantasy Sports

Vice Sports: The Daily Fantasy Sports Takeover

Forbes: Fanduel sued in court

Fox News; Gaming laws could pose risk for fantasy football craze

NBC: NFL Paying attention to Influence of high-stakes fantasy football leagues 

Evangelos Siozios

Evangelos Siozios is a student at New York Law School focusing on family law and real estate transactions. He is a 2012 Baruch Honors College Graduate whose interests include writing, exercising, and solving TV mysteries. Contact Evangelos at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fantasy Sports: Ready…Set…Bet! appeared first on Law Street.

Uncle Ben warned Spider-Man, “With great power comes great responsibility.” Our social network activity similarly generates limitless potential and mammoth responsibilities. Besides bridging the gap between cultures, social media offers both unexplored terrain and worrisome perils from a legal persepctive.

Facebook provides a “check in” option, which discloses not only your location but also how far away you are and where you’ve been lately. Snapchat allows a user to share a photo with another user and then have that photo disintegrate into cyberspace. These alternate realms of reality allow people to show who they think they are and who they want you to think they are. The metes and bounds descriptions of our cyber property interests are blurred. But to what extent? Until now, the judiciary seemed ill-equipped to deal with issues presented when someone was charged and later convicted based on information — photos, comments, public statements — shared virtually. Should a defendant’s social media presence be admitted into evidence? Read on and find out.

Social Media in the Courtroom

Inquiring into evidentiary issues requires a snapshot of criminal procedure jurisprudence. There are certain advantages and good policy reasons for accessing social media evidence used in criminal proceedings. Photos, for example, can be uploaded quickly and shared within seconds. They can alert authorities to crimes in progress, those about to be committed, or those already commissioned. Moreover, Police Departments now manage Twitter accounts, which highlight their day-to-day victories, reminding citizens to trust that they are on patrol. But when did these technologies become social norms? We all want to be protected, but at what cost?

When did technology become an issue in criminal proceedings?

Until recently, the government consistently retrieved any information from third parties without a neutral and detached magistrate issuing a warrant. The groundbreaking decree came in 1971 when the Supreme Court decided that recording conversations between an individual and agents, via a radio transmitter and without a warrant, did not violate the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution. However, this was decided in a time when social media didn’t exist, or at least where speaking face to face was not uncommon:

Social media use in the United States alone has increased by 356 percent since 2006. Currently, 52 percent of Americans have at least one social media profile more than one billion people use Facebook actively each month, and Twitter has over 140 million active users posting 340 million Tweets a day.

Every minute, social media users create massive amounts of data: Facebook users share 684,478 pieces of content; Tumblr blog owners publish 27,778 new posts; YouTube users upload 48 hours of new video; Foursquare users perform 2,083 check-ins; Flickr users add 3,125 new photos, and Instagram users share 3,600 new photos. In addition, there are hundreds of other social networking websites, each catering to a different demographic.

Recent Changes

With new ideologies come new rules to constrain them. The Supreme Court tackled the technology and privacy issues head on after wrestling with Riley v. California, after a defendant’s phone was searched without a warrant. In Riley, the Defendant was stopped for a traffic violation, which resulted in his arrest. Upon searching the defendant pursuant to the incident to arrest exception for searches, the police officers removed his phone from his pants pocket. Based on photos and videos found within the phone, the state sought an enhanced sentence for gang association. The Supreme Court Majority had this to say:

The Court did not uphold the warrantless search of Riley’s cell phone; however, the Court was reluctant in transcribing a per se rule, and instead recognized circumstances in which data retrieved from a cell phone would be necessary to combat an unforeseen exigency. Thus, although the incident to an arrest exception would not suffice for searches of a defendant’s cell phone, the Court reserved its discretion as judicial intermediary.

I imagine lawyers will soon use the rules to their advantage and argue that individuals “checking in” to locations on sites such as Foursquare are not hearsay but “present sense impressions,” and that tweets are admissible under the “state of mind” exception.

Not all Courts treat this type of evidence the same way, however. In Miles v. Raycom Media, the Court found that a Facebook page containing unsworn statements from third parties that were offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted constituted inadmissible hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801. Thus, the court restricted the scope of Facebook profile admissibility.

On the one hand, we are presented with judges who may not understand the significance of our social network privacies and the public diaries we divulge. On the other we have judges willing to apply (make) exceptions to what we post, which they use to incriminate us later. I say “us” because it is our online activities and trends that shape these realities.

Social Policies

As we can see, courts are conflicted as to whether admitting this evidence upholds our notions of truth, justice, and fairness. It’s a cycle. First, our social network activity creates criminal proceedings because defendants also use social networks. These proceedings then generate different approaches in judges handling evidence issues. Finally, these issues lead back to defendants, which prompts changes to our social networking habits after we notice our information is no longer private. Meanwhile, the people play pawns: citizens lose privacy and people get arrested. Nevertheless, Snapchat offers grounds for alarming disagreement, debate, and policy.

Snapchat lets people share secret photos with one another, which disappear upon the recipient’s retrieval. It makes sense that a defendant may want to broadcast his new kill or fashion his new stolen watch. Using Snapchat, he can send a picture to his gang or girlfriend, showcasing that he pulled it off.

Show-offs never get away with it. In fact, when you join Snapchat, you authorize it to “process and store” the nature of your contents. So while you think the picture of that hot new bathing suit you stole and sent your boyfriend won’t be found, it’s actually being saved. Moreover, Snapchat’s policy provides that:

We may share information about you as follows or as otherwise described in this Privacy Policy:

• In response to legal process or a request for information if we believe disclosure is in accordance with any applicable law, rule, or regulation, or as otherwise required by any applicable law, rule or regulation;
• In order to investigate or remedy potential violations of our user agreements or policies, or to protect the rights, property and safety of Snapchat, our users or others;
• In connection with, or during negotiations of, any merger, sale of company assets, financing or acquisition of all or a portion of our business to another company; and
• With your consent or at your direction.

Conclusion

Many people join Snapchat because they can send and receive photos and videos that they don’t want others to see. Although we already submit some of our privacy to online networks when we subscribe, if Congress statutorily enacts that any posts on social media can be used as evidence, then people would be deterred from joining the sites in the first place. This could limit the amount of people sharing dumb photos or implicating themselves. Juxtaposed, a statute like this could offer broader criminal tactics, or it could prevent defendants from implicating themselves. A lot of Snapchat and social media in general is based on our heightened expectations that what we do, send, or comment on, won’t be available for use against us. Alternatively, what we do, send, or comment on, is nevertheless saved in case something happens. Is that fair? Perhaps social media giants operating under the false pretenses of security should be exposed once and for all.

Resources

Primary

Snapchat: Privacy Policy

EFF: The Stored Communications Act

Additional

Bloomberg BNA: Social Media Evidence in Criminal Proceedings

American Bar Association: Admissibility of Social Media Evidence

Evangelos Siozios

Evangelos Siozios is a student at New York Law School focusing on family law and real estate transactions. He is a 2012 Baruch Honors College Graduate whose interests include writing, exercising, and solving TV mysteries. Contact Evangelos at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Social Media in the Courtroom: What is Admissible? appeared first on Law Street.

Electronic Dance Music (“EDM”) is here and it has taken the United States by storm. The popularity of EDM shows, combined with their mind-numbing music and effervescent visual superiority has transformed ordinary concert goers into multi-day event attendees. Lately however, much of EDM’s glitz and glamour has been tarnished by young adults held firmly in its clutches. The music is one thing: everyone loves a good beat, some vocals, and beautiful people to enjoy it with. It’s when the beat doesn’t stop and the shows become more about the drugs inherent to them that one wonders whether EDM shows are promoting drug use. Read on and decide for yourself.

What is EDM?

Electronic Dance Music or “EDM” is a music genre that evolved around the sound-system scene. The underground movement transformed from hip-hop crazed fans to other genres such as house, trance, and dub step. Originally, the scene started in warehouses, but quickly spread to massive productions and stadiums filled to the brim for the entertainment needs of 300,000 plus fans. However, the scene itself seems so much more. It’s a lifestyle, similar to the sex, drugs, and rock and roll of the 80s.

As the internet expanded so did the potential of this newly popularized genre. Part of EDM’s growth is attributed to the inner workings of social media, allowing DJs to post music and have others listen to and comment on it. Moreover, with word-of-mouth marketing outdated (at least in the music popularity sense), fans keep to apps such as Pandora and SoundCloud. SoundCloud, for example, allows users to listen to multi-day festival sets (multi-hour mixes) from their favorite DJs. Although fans listen to these mixes, this makes no sense to old-school rockers like Tom Petty. In a recent interview by USA Today, this is what he had to say about EDM festivals:

“Watch people play records? That’s stupid. You couldn’t pay me to go. I’m not oversimplifying it,” he seethed. “That’s what’s going on. I don’t think it would be any fun without the drugs. It’s a drug party.” 

Maybe Petty is right, but his subjective views would be harshly rebutted by some of house music’s longtime fans. Fans — especially old-timers in the dance music industry — may characterize his opinion as hypocritical, considering that he criticized the genre by equating the style to drug use. Instead, Forbes Magazine described EDM as the following:

“As for live performances, electronic dance music artists perform live by deejaying, playing their own songs and, again, the songs of other artists, at a range of events held at stadiums or clubs around the world. They are not playing an instrument or singing a song, but instead controlling the crowd’s emotions through expert song selection and sound mixing.” Forbes

To most EDM observers, Petty’s opinion is probably antithetical and Forbes’ is accurate. Although the lifestyle may be a stretch into the imaginative, perhaps getting dressed up to go to a club or festival has a cultural feel to it. Is it really any different than the way attendees dressed and partied at Woodstock? Doesn’t our culture encourage lavish outfits with a dash of creativity? Denouncing creative passion seems unfair, which is why evaluating EDM’s transformation is critical.

When did EDM become popular?

EDM shows sprung to popularity over the last five years. But society has witnessed changes in music tastes over the decades. In the 1980s and 90s, dance clubs like Twilo and Limelight lit up NYC streets. The underground scene was alive, creating its own sub-culture of “Club-Kids,” forever eternalized in the movie Party Monster. Throughout the 90s the scene dissolved, but starting in early 2009, there was a sudden re-emergence of the flashing lights, thumping bass, and of course, flamboyant outfits. But where did this come from? Did the music ever really die out? Maybe it was a long overdue awakening.

In 2009, David Guetta catapulted to fame by releasing tracks like “When Love Takes Over” and “Sexy Bitch.” Although he was relatively unknown to the majority of EDM enthusiasts, his presence took underground music and launched it onto the national stage. Electronic music, a favorite of fans all over Europe, suddenly swept through the States. Asked about the roots and influence his music has had on the States, Guetta said,

“I’ve created a bridge between European electronic culture and urban American culture, and I’ve worked with established brands. So media has given us a chance, an opportunity that I never had before.”

For once, artists no longer needed to compete against each other because Hip-Hop and Techno finally started to both co-exist and merge. In addition to the music, which was uncharacteristically played on HOT 97 Hip-Hop radio stations, television shows vied for the opportunity to capitalize on the music’s popularity. The end-result: shows like “Jersey Shore” captivated young audiences, teaching them the proper way to fist pump, tan, and do their laundry.

European music culture is largely accredited with the emergence of Techno and EDM in the United States. However, many fans don’t appreciate the roots of the music they listen to, considering that ingrained in the soul music of Chicago in the 1980s lay the humble beginnings of EDM’s underground culture. Except thirty years ago, a Deejay wasn’t someone with a laptop, but rather someone who sifted through dusty boxes of oldies and mixed songs using turntables in the back of restaurants.

After announcing his retirement in 2012, superstar underground/resident DJ Danny Tenaglia explained the modern phenomena as compared to the 70s gospel and deep house from which his inspirations flowed. When asked about the grand venues and music that have revolutionized today’s dance scene, he was honest.

“[Some DJs] make so much money selling out nightclubs,” Tenaglia says, referring to the scene’s current stars. “But I’m sure [they realize] the immaturity factor and the silliness of some of these melodies. It’s so preschool; it’s like listening to Sesame Street!”

In Tenaglia’s heyday, successful DJs needed rhythm, soul, and timing. Unlike today, they couldn’t syncopate sounds with the push of a button. It wasn’t uncommon for DJs to dance in the crowd and make small talk with their fans. Moreover, the crowds weren’t little kids on drugs. Drugs existed, but they were secondary to an underground culture of misfits and alternative folk. Today, it seems the music has taken a backseat to the drugs involved in EDM concerts. How did this happen? Is this just a modern spin-off? Or is this a culture, a newly-minted version of a dying fad?

Is EDM for real?

The younger generation may be changing the meaning of Dance Music in EDM. Directors Dan Cutforth and Jane Lipsitz are on the forefront of understanding the why and how factors of EDM in their new documentary “Under the Electric Sky,” which showcases the “community” feeling of EDM culture. One of the six subjects the documentary, Jose, a wheelchair-bound young man, accredits the success of EDM to this community. He treats these festivals as therapy for his terminal condition.

“If people could just treat each other the way they treat each other at EDC … the world would be a much better place.”

The majority of people would agree with his assertion. Most people want to feel part of a community because isolation has its own social stigmas. Regardless, drug use at music concerts is nothing new. However, these days it seems like the old dog has learned a few new tricks, and playing with “Molly” is one of them. Sebastian Ingrosso, long-time DJ/producer and original member of Swedish House Mafia, addressed the surge in EDM drug-related injuries.

“It’s a terrible thing that kids need to take drugs to enjoy something. I enjoy music without any kind of substance and I wish that all other people could do the same, because when you’re sober and you get high on the music you can really feel it and get what’s going on.”

From a professional standpoint, Ingrosso may have hit the issue on its head, and he’s not the only one. In fact, more vocal proponents like DJ/Producer Kaskade, use internet outlets like blogs to advocate social responsibility among EDM festival attendees.

“It’s important to take a step back and realize the importance of life. Like, hey we’re all here to have a good time. Let’s do it in a way that’s smart so we don’t have to have these conversations.”

---

Who or what is Molly?

According to the Week, Molly is methylenedioxymethamphetamine, but it is commonly known as MDMA — the active ingredient in the party drug Ecstasy. Specifically:

“Whereas Ecstasy is frequently combined with other, potentially more dangerous drugs — including speed, ketamine, or even LSD — Molly is a fairly recent rebranding effort that is said to contain pure MDMA. Molly is often ingested in a powder of crystal form, and is available illegally for $30 to $50 a dose.” The Week

Molly boosts serotonin in a user’s brain, neuroepinephrine, and dopamine, allowing a user to feel elevated moods and feelings of empathy. In fact, the drug produces heightened emotions and perceptions. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the drug boosts:

Serotonin and triggers the release of the hormones oxytocin and vasopressin, which play important roles in love, trust, sexual arousal, and other social experiences. This may account for the characteristic feelings of emotional closeness and empathy produced by the drug; studies in both rats and humans have shown that MDMA raises the levels of these hormones.

Although a single dose is relatively non-fatal, many users “stack” more than a single dose in an evening in order to reignite Molly’s earlier effects. As one user told The New York Times, “It makes you really happy. It’s very loose. You just get very turned on — not even sexually, but you just feel really upbeat and want to dance or whatever.” Michael C. Gerald, explored Molly’s effects in The Drug Book. He described Molly as a stimulant that, “produces euphoria and physical energy, increasing feelings of empathy and intimacy with partners” that makes users feel as if “all is right in the world.”

After nonstop frenetic dancing for hours in hot, crowded surroundings, some participants experience hyperthermia, a dangerous rise in body temperature that can cause kidney and liver failure. Drinking excessive volumes of water, coupled with dehydration due to sweating, can cause a steep drop in blood sodium levels, potentially resulting in confusion, delirium, and convulsions. The Drug Book.

That’s right. Even Molly, inherently known for its good effects, can have serious consequences. MDMA boosts one’s internal temperature, interfering with the body’s self-regulation of temperature. In turn, this can lead to hypothermia, cardiac arrhythmia, muscle breakdown, and renal failure. The more serious consequences include brain damage, and in some cases death. But why has the Millennial sub-culture become so involved with the drug? Only exploring its use at festivals can give a genuine answer to this question.

Why do people take Molly at festivals?

EDM shows are the perfect playground for experiencing both Molly’s visual and emotional perceptive enhancements. Festivals are fashioned for Molly users. Big-Screen animations, thundering sound systems, and thousands of people, provide both the visual and emotional stimulations for enjoying the drug.

In fact, using Molly has transcended across all age groups, even inciting interest in adults in their thirties and forties. “Typically in the past we’d see rave kids, but now we’re seeing more people into their 30s and 40s experimenting with it,” said Dr. Glatter. “MDMA use has increased dramatically. It’s really a global phenomenon now.”

The problem is these festivals are heating up the debate as to whether they promote drug use. In 2011, “hospitals across the country reported more than 22,000 MDMA-related emergency-room visits, which according to the Drug Abuse Warning Network, is a 120 percent increase from 2004.” This spike has led to public scrutiny regarding the efforts festival management implemented to combat the rampant use of drugs at their shows.

What has EDM management done to combat drug use at their shows?

If the DJs producing and playing the music are opposed to “kids” using drugs for their musical enjoyment, then what have festivals done to account for these concerns? Last year two fans died after overdosing on Molly at New York’s Electric Zoo Festival despite having 70 emergency medical technicians, 15 paramedics, five ER nurses, two physicians, and numerous other medical personnel on hand at Randall’s Island. According to Rolling Stone, “during a press conference after the tragedy, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg praised promoter Made Event for putting in ‘as good procedures as we could think of.'” In response to and after heavy public opposition, the third day of the festival was cancelled. This year, festival-goers were required to watch this two minute video before gaining admission into the Zoo.

It seems American health concerns have taken cues from their U.K. counterparts, where BBC reported only 27 out of an estimated 500,000 Molly users died last year. This isn’t to suggest that the number isn’t high, but only to display the concerted effort by festival management and attendees alike. This proactive approach is demonstrated by Electric Daisy Carnival’s website, which provides guidelines on health and wellness detailing everything from medical stations, to water intake suggestions, to buddy system traveling. The formula seems simple: take care of each other and we will continue hosting EDM events. Providing this ultimatum and instituting these changes supports that festival management has finally recognized the dangerous concoction of drugs and the kids taking them that attend their shows.

Conclusion

Whether or not canceling the final day of a multi-day festival or creating the aforementioned PSA video helped combat the drug-related deaths at this summer’s events is debateable. After beefing up security and teaming with local officials to search bags for contraband, there were no deaths to report at Electric Zoo this past summer. Maybe festival goers finally got the message. Either that, or a few too many Mollies threatened a $6.2 billion dollar market, forcing the hand of festival management to play safe or bite the bullet.

Resources

Rolling Stone: Drugs, Death, and Dance Music

Billboard: EDM Biz Worth $6.2bn (report)

ElectricDaisyCarnival: Tickets

National Institute on Drug Abuse: Drug Facts: MDMA

Forbes: Is Electric Dance Music the Ticket to Reach Millennials?

Evangelos Siozios

Evangelos Siozios is a student at New York Law School focusing on family law and real estate transactions. He is a 2012 Baruch Honors College Graduate whose interests include writing, exercising, and solving TV mysteries. Contact Evangelos at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post EDM Stands for Electric Dance Music, Not Eating Dem Mollies appeared first on Law Street.

The advent of social media networks introduced endless applications, opportunities, and hundred of thousands of attention-seeking men and women searching for that new fix, that something different. Nowadays, with television shows broadcasting adulterous affairs and advertisements screaming sex, one questions whether the provocateur’s nature is encouraged in the United States. Read on to learn about the ways in which our society addresses, promotes, and deals with adulterous behavior.

Is it just me, or is sex everywhere?

From Showtime’s hit show “Masters of Sex”, to the “Game of Thrones” saga on HBO, nudity and passion play on our society’s imagination. Scandal reigns supreme in the monotonous lifestyle of working, paying taxes, and drinking endless Iced Venti Americanos. No one will openly condone cheating, but infidelity is pervasive; it’s something that’s constantly talked about in modern society.

In 2010, the National Opinion Research Center inquired into the percentage of men and women cheating on their spouses. The percentage of men involved in extramarital affairs remained steady, around 21.6 percent. However, the infidelity rate amongst married women rose to about 14.7 percent. This jump was attributed to more women joining the workforce and obtaining jobs requiring them to travel.

But why shift any blame? Perhaps allocating responsibility isn’t a working testament to the truth about infidelity. Maybe people just get tired of each other and hope for a change. Gary Neuman quantified his studies of adulterous men in his book “The Truth About Cheating” in 2008. He provided that about 1 in 2.7 men cheat on their wives. He blamed male insecurity.

The majority said it was an emotional disconnection, specifically a sense of feeling under-appreciated. A lack of thoughtful gestures. Men are very emotional beings. They just don’t look like that. Or they don’t seem like that. Or they don’t tell you that.

But is the driving force behind adulterous men purely insecurity driven? And can a woman’s indiscretions be explained by working more, or in different places? That may have once been the case; however, in modern years, our marriage discussions have shifted from treating bedrooms sacredly, to coffee-shop chit-chat and salon banter. Perhaps you’ve never witnessed it, or don’t frequent barbershops and Starbucks, but, what if George Clooney in “Out of Sight” was right? What if that moment passing someone on the street transforms wayward thoughts into scandalous realities?

Is infidelity easier today?

It’s 2014, and apps such as OkCupid and Tinder exist. Today, “swiping,” has erased the formal face to face contact typical to traditional relationship notions. With a flick of a finger one can generate an obscene amount of potential lovers, both hopefuls and hopeless prospects. It takes no longer to find someone than the time it takes to inconspicuously avert your eyes from the married neighbor’s wife, after the husband notices you “creeping.”

A simple Google search for “apps for cheating” generates countless articles, magazine excerpts, and ratings of new phone applications easily designed and ranked to help one cloak mischievous manners. Apps like Ashley Madison, SnapChat, and Black SMS, not only encourage infidelity, but make discovering it much more difficult. On the other hand, applications for exposing a cheating spouse, like ThaiSpy and CoupleTracker, make catching one affordable and accessible. Incidentally, the internet provides a tech black market, allowing one to fulfill scandalous desire and retain anonymity. Is it really a surprise, that Millennials, thrust into technology’s embrace, are showing symptoms of a swelling infidelity rate? Technology has injected itself into the relationship process, and it shows no signs of stalling. For example, a new survey published by IBISWorld, a Santa Monica market research firm, discussed the implications of mobile dating, yielding that approximately one third of new marriages start online.

Societally, we are going to increasingly meet more of our romantic partners online as we establish more of an online presence in terms of social media,” says Caitlin Moldvay, a dating industry senior analyst for IBISWorld in Santa Monica, Calif. “I do think mobile dating is going to be the main driver of this growth.

But, what does this have to do with infidelity? Perhaps, not much at all, but could the way people meet and explore their sexual inclinations dictate modern cultural trends? If meeting Casanova becomes easier, is it easier to cheat? That could make sense.

Contrarily, research conducted by Michael Rosenfeld, a sociologist at Stanford University, rebuts this presumption. In his independent study published in the American Sociological Review, he found that 22 percent of new couples met online; however, these couples were twice as likely to marry as those who met offline.

 Couples who meet online are more likely to progress to marriage than couples who meet in other ways.

He explained this phenomenon by pointing out that dating sites typically arouse interest in people genuinely seeking marriage as their goal. Although his results seem noble, they remain dubious because internet-formed relationships are still in their infancy stages. Delving deeper into research shows that infidelity mostly occurs after 5-7 years of the marriage or when a child was born. Therefore, although online couples are initially happier, studying their long term speculations may be premature, considering the relative new-ness of social media and online dating. Nevertheless, both ideas suggest that taking a look into our nation’s divorce rate may shed some light on the issue.

Is infidelity the reason behind our surging divorce rate?

Statisticians rank the United States as having the sixth most divorces in the world. Although the specific divorce rate is relatively unknown, it is speculated that around 40-50 percent of all marriages end in divorce. However, this statistic does not account for the complexities surrounding marital difficulties. For example, the largest rate of divorcing men and women are between the ages of 20-24–37 percent for women, and 39 percent for men:

“f you just ask whether infidelity is going up, you don’t see really impressive changes. But if you magnify the picture and you start looking at specific gender and age cohorts, we do start to see some pretty significant changes.

David C. Atkins, an associate research  professor at the University of Washington Center for the Study of Health and Risk Behaviors, studied the infidelity rate among married couples and discovered that although the divorce rate has not risen significantly, particular age groups, including newly married couples and couples over 60, are cheating more often. He cites the availability of pornography on the Internet as a motivator for younger couples, and the prevalence of remedies treating erectile dysfunction for older couples. Moreover, the modern trend deemphasizes sex as the primary driving force of infidelity. Instead, intimacy and openness with one’s new flame boosts the infidelity rate. This idea was qualified this year in a new study published in a journal, Evolutionary Psychology, which recruited 477 adults: 238 men and 239 women. The study asked all participants two questions:

Which would distress you more: Imagining your partner enjoying passionate sexual intercourse with another person or imagining your partner forming a deep emotional attachment with another person?

Interestingly the results varied, depending on who you asked. Men were most distraught about physical infidelity and women by emotional cheating. Thus, examining all the reports above presents us with a trend that shows a possible gender-specific irony: 1) Men do not always appreciate a spouse’s physical infidelity; however, men usually cheat due to emotional insecurity, and 2) Women do not  always appreciate a spouse’s emotional attachment, but can be attracted to a man’s sexual prowess. Although, our nation’s mushrooming divorce rate isn’t directly attributable to infidelity alone, a question remains as to why infidelity is so ubiquitous today.

What effects do social networks have on infidelity?

Today, we are constantly connected. Many people maintain activity on one or more social networks or maintain “friends,” many of whom they haven’t spoken to in years: friends, exes, people they don’t know, or people they would like to know. Face to face relationships are no longer as mainstream as they used to be. But what role does our ability to connect with people from all over the world play in expansive relationship betrayal?

Researchers at Indiana University studied the connection between social networks and relationship availability. The study coined the term “digital cheating” and investigates suspicions about relationship demise by social networks. It found that people keep Facebook and other outlets to monitor the availability of their romantic/sexual prospects and whether or not they are in a committed relationships. Their breakthrough suggests that modern networking trends illustrate adults breaking from meeting new people, and instead, holding on to old flames, or as they called them, “Back-Burners.” As the study explains:

We use the term back burner to describe a desired potential or continuing romantic/sexual partner with whom one communicates, but to whom one is not exclusively committed. Although communication with back burners is not new, modern technology affords novel channels (e.g., social networking applications and text messaging) that individuals are using to connect with back burners.

Additionally, the study found that some partners in adult relationships maintain romantic or sexual conversations, on average, with two people other than their significant other. Interestingly, this trend is gender neutral, resulting in a similar average rate for both men and women. Although the larger pool of prospects and digital back-and-forth are not necessarily dispositive of physical wrongdoing, these findings lend credence to the English idiom that there really are plenty of fish in the sea.

Conclusion

Perhaps the loyal spouse today shouldn’t blame his or her philandering partner. Modern philosophies describing today’s adultery clash with old-school promiscuity notions, which ascribe different reasons for extramarital affairs. Maybe infidelity by one spouse is just a byproduct of emotional yearning. Although cheating compromises the values of one spouse at the expense of another’s selfishness, our society mimics this trend by condoning infidelity for some, while celebrating it for others.  For example, our infamous double-standard provides that philandering men will mostly receive “props” from their “boys,” while unfaithful women are labeled with the love chords of revulsion. Even though both sexes may be equally guilty in entertaining back-burners for that just-in-case moment, it seems unfair to brand one sex with the Scarlet Letter celebrated by the other. Nevertheless, the problem might not lie between or among the sexes, considering this issue permeates every facet of modern life, such as our phones, homes, and television shows. Maybe it has now just become a part of today’s life.

Resources

USA Today: Study: More Than a Third of New Marriages Start Online

Computers in Human Behavior: Using Modern Technology to Keep in Touch With Back Burners

Evolutionary Psychology: Explaining Sex Differences in Reactions to Relationship Infidelities

Bloomberg: More U.S. Women Report Cheating on Their Spouses

Infidelity Facts: When Does Infidelity Occur?

Huffington Post: Why People Cheat: 12 Differences Between men and Women

CNN: Besides Sex–Other Reasons Men Cheat

Evangelos Siozios

Evangelos Siozios is a student at New York Law School focusing on family law and real estate transactions. He is a 2012 Baruch Honors College Graduate whose interests include writing, exercising, and solving TV mysteries. Contact Evangelos at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Infidelity in the United States: Why is the Trend Growing? appeared first on Law Street.

With all the media hoopla surrounding Ray Rice’s domestic violence issues and Adrian Peterson’s child abuse controversy, the NFL diverted its attention from its previously spotlighted concussion policy. In fact, the NFL’s recent media attention to domestic violence issues threatens to expose its player health policy by subjecting it to increased scrutiny as a result of its players’ recent predicaments.

Well, the issue here isn’t domestic violence, but rather Roger Goodell’s non-partisan approach to controversial issues concerning player welfare, accentuated by the NFL’s re-emerging concussion policy. Perhaps Goodell going on this media blitz has taught him a football fundamental; keeping his eye on the ball. Read on to learn about what could become of the NFL’s newest scandal: concussion policies.

When did the NFL become conscious of the unconsciousness of its football players?

In 1994, the National Football League created a committee responsible for overseeing brain injuries to its players after a series of permanent and near-fatal neurological issues to former players. The NFL named Dr. Elliot Pellman, a doctor without any brain-injury experience, the head of its newly-formed Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Committee. Thirteen years later, Pellman stepped down after his highly criticized finding that returning to play after sustaining a concussion did “not involve significant risk of a second injury either in the same game or in the same season.“

Between 2008 and 2010, the bodies of twelve former professional American football players underwent post-mortem evaluations for CTE (chronic traumatic encephalopathy), a degenerative brain-functioning disease, which contributes to suicide, apathy, memory loss, changes in behavior, and depression. The proteins developed in an NFL player’s brain are inherent to a chronic sufferer of Alzheimer’s or epilepsy. Within months the NFL faced legal action from players and responded by implementing a telephone hotline for players to call when forced to play contrary to medical opinion. Nevertheless, by 2012, after unsuccessfully trying to wiggle its way out of the media onslaught, the NFL finally admitted its role in neurological dysfunctions.

PBS Concussion Frontline: CTE occurs when repetitive head trauma begins to produce abnormal proteins in the brain known as “tau.” The tau proteins work to essentially form tangles around the brain’s blood vessels, interrupting normal functioning and eventually killing nerve cells themselves. Patients with less advanced forms of the disease can suffer from mood disorders, such as depression and bouts of rage, while those with more severe cases can experience confusion, memory loss and advanced dementia.

Richard Ellenbogen, a neurosurgeon and co-chairman of the NFL Head, Neck and Spine Committee, characterized these issues this year by saying, “The big issue in concussions is when is it safe to return a player back to the sport, or back to exercising? And the fact of the matter is we really don’t know the correct answer.”

Recently, the NFL supported its players after acknowledging its fault and changing some rules by reaching a settlement requiring the NFL to fund medical exams, concussion-related research, and litigation expenses. However, recent progress was overshadowed when a study of 79 former players yielded that 76 players were diagnosed with CTE.

What changes did the NFL implement to mitigate the consequences of playing professional football?

In light of the head-trauma class-action lawsuits targeting the NFL’s policy, one wonders whether the NFL instituted safe precautionary measures. In 2012, 261 players were diagnosed with concussions in preseason and regular-season injuries. Just a year later, CNN reported a 13 percent drop in these injuries, totaling 228 concussions. This decrease was largely attributed to the 2013 change in on-field rules prohibiting runners and defenders from lowering their heads outside of the tackle box and leading with their helmets when tackling. Additionally, the NFL moved the kickoff yard marker from 25 to 35 yards, to help curb player injuries on kickoff returns.

According to PBS Frontline, the preseason and week one games combined produced 15 concussions. The positions most prone to these injury in the past were wide receivers and cornerbacks, with safeties snatching the number three position. Currently, the NFL heads into its fifth week with 22 concussions to date.

Due to the recent uptick in concussions in light of post-football life injuries, the NFL agreed to settle its pending concussion-centered lawsuits for $765 million to 21,000 former players. Although this may seem exorbitant, the NFL’s tax exemptions and billion dollar revenue schemes amount to a $20,000 a year payout for 30 years to each player. Considering about 30 percent of all current NFL players will suffer from dementia or CTE, this amount represents a minor setback, accounting for only .05 percent of the NFL’s annual revenue.

Should the NFL be doing more to prevent concussions?

Truth is, the problem is exacerbated by us, the fans. Too often we hope for big hits and inside play-action passes giving rise to the bone-crushing plays, which provoke these devastating brain injuries. Although the NFL reduces the impact of these injuries by having doctors perform sideline evaluations and requiring a player to miss at least one play after receiving medical attention, progress has been minimal.

Recent changes in technology provide easier and cheaper alternatives that can detect concussion symptoms. One alternative, such as brain sensors in players’ helmets, can ameliorate some of the sting of future injury because they scan the brain for concussion symptoms during the game. As of now, the NFL does not include this technology in players’  helmets. Instead, the NFL relies on an unaffiliated neuro-trauma consultant (UNTC) who stands on the 25-yard line and waits for an emergency call by the team’s physician. This seems paradoxical, considering the team employs the physician who decides whether to allow the UNTC to evaluate a player. Furthermore, there aren’t any guidelines as to when the physician makes that call, which poses questions regarding the NFL’s regulatory capacity. Who regulates these physicians with unfettered discretion making these calls? Why doesn’t the independent doctor have priority, when football games are a billion-dollar, competitive enterprise?

In 2013, Matt Forte, the Chicago Bears’ running back criticized the NFL’s proposed policy and rule changes by tweeting,

“Last time I checked, football was a contact sport. Calling bank now to set up my lowering boom fund.”

Fans may not want to watch a game diluted by yellow flags, commercials, and contact alternatives. On the one hand, players should be careful, but on the other, pro-football players pull in more than ten times the salary of the average citizen; they are compensated for sacrifices to their bodies. This isn’t to suggest the NFL has not protected its players, but it raises questions as to whether the NFL has taken every step to ensure safety as its priority. Nevertheless, even if sensors are added, or rules are changed, football is football, and fans love it.

Football is inherently a physical sport. People get hurt when they play physical sports. By regulating the hits and plays giving rise to concussions, one might say that the game’s integrity is compromised. The players’ safety is pitted against fans cheering (money, television, and notoriety), which contributes to the NFL’s dilemma, because both are equipoised. The problem of mitigating concussion injuries infiltrates deeper than simply installing sensors in players’ helmets because new technology goes hand in hand with new rules, which lead to more timeouts and less action. For example, all scoring plays are now reviewed. Before, fans felt excitement in hoping their quarterback would summon his offense and snap the ball to kick the extra point.

Although recent changes seem promising because they promote player welfare, one of the biggest problems requires educating the public. Public scrutiny is unforgiving, especially when fans are unaware of why new rules are enacted. In response to public scrutiny, the NFL now provides guidelines for dealing with concussion-related injuries and measures on protecting football players.

What are the latest developments on concussion policies?

Due to the way Goodell handled the domestic violence issue, his cohorts are under the gun to produce some positive changes, especially in light of recent data exposing the NFL’s past efforts in restructuring its concussion policy. Although the NFL was blindsided in some fashion by its players’ conduct, most of which are out of its control, the NFL restructured its policy by pulling players, minimizing competitive interests, and educating the public. Moreover, the NFL’s recent changes reflect its attitude of preserving its players’ welfare. The NFL itself issued a statement last August.

Player safety is the top priority for the NFL. Since its earliest days, the league has continuously taken steps to ensure that the game is played as fairly as possible without unnecessary risk to its participants, including making changes and enhancements to game safety rules.

In recent years, the NFL has modified its playing rules to sharply reduce contact to the head and neck of players. These modifications were made separate from, and in addition to, the league’s longstanding prohibitions against helmet to helmet contact.

Conclusion 

By confronting the issue honestly, settling lawsuits, and changing rules, the NFL has progressed. But at what cost? As the leading example of football everywhere, Goodell will likely return to initiating swift rule changes. In 2007, Goodell’s policy and partial reaction to Austin Collie’s concussion was:

“Medical decisions will continue to override any competitive decisions.”

Recently, the NFL published its Return to Play Policy for concussions and the guidelines for players returning from concussions. After years of debate, it seems Goodell is poised to confront the reality that NFL play permanently injures professional players.

Although domestic violence eclipsed the concussion issue recently, teams scrambled to get in touch with their fans, implementing strategies in an effort to save the organization’s reputation. Progress was made, but the underlying health issue remains. Niles Paul reminded the public of this Thursday night, when he crashed into the ground, motionless. Although the team doctor removed him from the game and issued mandatory time off, the rowdy bar-crowd screams overshadowed his injury, clearly representing the NFL’s dilemma.

Resources

PBS: 76 of 79 Deceased NFL Players Found to Have Brain Disease

MMQB: A Tie’s a Win for the NFL

ESPN: Concussion Case Good for Ex-Cowboys

CNN: NFL Concussions Fast Facts

USA Today: NFL’s Concussion Carousel in Full Motion Week 1

PBS: League of Denial: The NFL’s Concussion Crisis

ESPN: Seaus to Opt Out of Concussion Deal

Bleacher Report: Why the NFL’s Concussion Policy is Failing

Evangelos Siozios

Evangelos Siozios is a student at New York Law School focusing on family law and real estate transactions. He is a 2012 Baruch Honors College Graduate whose interests include writing, exercising, and solving TV mysteries. Contact Evangelos at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fans vs. Player Safety: The NFL’s Concussion Dilemma appeared first on Law Street.