Repeal of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has been an increasing popular debate topic over the last several years. Though buried under other hot topics, such as foreign policy, government surveillance, and celebrity gossip, this conversation has been simmering on a back burner since at least the early 90s. The general consensus for those who would repeal the act is that it would then be reformed, though there are some who want it gone altogether. Read on to see why people are concerned about the date of the Endangered Species Act.

The History and Purpose of the ESA

The Endangered Species Act as we know it was passed by Congress in 1973. It was preceded by the Endangered Species Preservation Act in 1966, which was amended three years later. Some of the main changes to the 1973 version included the creation of a set definitions for words such as “endangered” and “threatened,” widening the law to include plants, and restricting the federal government from any action that would endanger a listed species.

Another expansion the ESA provided was including protection guidelines from the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) in Washington, DC, which was signed by 80 nations taking a stand against environmentally harmful trade practices. An example of this was in 1989 when ivory imports were banned because of elephant poachers in Africa.

There were amendments to the act in 1978, 1982, 1988, and 2004, most of which dealt with defining exact parameters of what the government could and could not do, as well as smoothing out the process of proposing candidates for inclusion.

The point of the ESA is to not only stop the decimation of endangered species but also to recover them and ultimately delist them when they are no longer in danger of extinction. This is to be achieved through recovery plans written by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) biologists in collaboration with experts. The goals of the FWS are further explained in this video that they released for the ESA’s fortieth anniversary last year.

When an animal or plant is listed, it becomes illegal to “take” it without a federal permit. Typically these permits are granted for reasons of conservation or scientific research. Under the definitions section of the act, “take” is explained as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” “Take” doesn’t apply to plants unless they are on federal land. Laws can differ slightly from state to state, however, as some may have extra restrictions. It’s always best to know the rules as they apply to you.

How does a species make the list?

When considering a candidate for listing, the Fish and Wildlife Service uses a five-factor list, any of which can make the candidate eligible.

(A) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;

(B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;

(C) disease or predation;

(D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or

(E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

The species selected represent the most critical cases, but there is also a list of candidates that meet the qualifications but can’t be moved forward due to budget or time restrictions. According to the FWS, in these cases the agency “works with States, Tribes, private landowners, private partners, and other Federal agencies to carry out conservation actions for these species to prevent further decline and possibly eliminate the need for listing.”

By the Numbers

• Thirty-one listed species have been fully recovered and therefore delisted.
• Ten listed species have been delisted due to extinction.
• There are 1,371 listed animals and 886 listed plants.
• The total expenditures for the 2013 fiscal year for endangered and threatened species by federal and state governments was more than $1.7 billion.
• Sixty-eight percent of protected species whose conditions are known are improving or stable.
• Thirty-two percent of protected species whose conditions are known are declining.
• Ninety percent of listed species are on track for their recovery rate deadlines, as outlined in their recovery plans.
• A 2013 poll reported that 42 percent of Americans said that the ESA should be strengthened, 25 percent said to leave it alone, and 24 percent said it should be weakened.

For Repeal and Reform

One of the main arguments for reforming the Endangered Species Act is that there is little incentive for private landowners to comply. In fact, once an endangered species is found, the land becomes subject to restrictions without any financial compensation from the government, so there is arguably reason for such property owners to kill and dispose of the endangered animal before anyone else finds out about it. This use of government command instead of reward is a problem for free market fans and property rights activists alike.

Attorney Damien Schiff explains some of these property rights in the video below by the Pacific Legal Foundation.

Schiff also brings up the idea of prioritizing species worth saving, which has been reflected in arguments that the law is too inflexible in its efforts to save every endangered species.

Others believe the act puts nature before people, as jobs that would be created developing protected land are taken away and many government dollars are spent that could be put to use on humans or that could remain in taxpayers’ pockets. It has even been suggested that selling land currently under Federal protection could result in revenue for the government.

The question of cost is addressed in the NBC News story below about saving the panda.

On the more scandalous side of the controversy, there have been allegations that seeds of listed plants have been spread across mining sites in order to halt progress. Another case of abuse of the act was when an environmental group sued the FWS because four types of shrimp weren’t listed. The legal action was allegedly an attempt to block the development of 1.7 million acres of land.

Those who are more concerned with the science behind the act say that it is actually too targeted at individual species rather than biodiversity as a whole, which could be a more effective goal. Environmentalists are also concerned that the government, charged with enforcing the ESA, doesn’t take into account the long-term effects of projects that could impact an area’s ecosystem. While a short-term risk to a listed animal would warrant a stop on the plan, some feel the government ignores or doesn’t adequately research risks that could be problematic later.

Support For the Act

A key argument against the ESA is that extinction is a natural process, but many scientists believe that it is starting to happen at an alarming rate due to human predation, clearing of habitats, and use of food sources. This is being called the sixth wave of extinction, and by this logic, we as humans should strive to correct the damage we have done. This logic is also applied when supporters factor in climate change and pollution as sources of man-made extinction. Proponents of the ESA argue that it is our moral and ethical responsibility to care for the animals and plants we have affected through our rapid expansion into their territories.

Also, scientists have proven that the extinction of one animal often disrupts the food chain to cause a domino or ripple effect of extinctions. Our health as humans could be affected by such disruptions if not kept in check, creating clear ties to our well being and that of our environment. Supporters also note that measures taken to ensure the health of animals and plants, such as stopping deforestation and keeping our waters clean, are practices from which we all benefit.

There are also questions about the origins of arguments to repeal the act–do they come from genuine concern or lobbyists from lumber, mining, and oil drilling companies? In other words, are repealers really concerned with people or corporate profit?

Another rebutted argument against the act is that it has only a one percent success rate (with success being measured only in delistings), but less than one percent of species listed have gone extinct. This, plus the fact that the majority of measured populations are stable or increasing, makes it clear that this seemingly crippling statistic isn’t so impressive, after all. In addition, the above-listed statistic about 90 percent of species being on track for recovery is a strong argument for a different–and more optimistic–measurement of success. If the act is allowed to continue, successes will come in time, preserving our wildlife for future generations.

Perhaps the simplest reason for support is that the ESA makes people more conscious of the world around them. It informs the public of species that need to be protected, increases awareness of humans’ effect on other lifeforms, and it creates dialogue about the consequences if said species die out. After all, if there are unknown consequences to certain animals’ extinction, we may not discover them until it is too late.

Conclusion

It seems that many questions surrounding the Endangered Species Act have to do with the worth of funding such a large endeavor and how to accurately measure its success. If one takes a narrow approach in defining success as delisting, the ESA has very little to show. If one accounts for improvement and stability, though, there is a lot more weight behind the project. Is it the government’s place to support wildlife, or would we be better off focusing on ourselves? Does the 41-year-old act need a facelift in order to make it more efficient and beneficial to humans? This issue hasn’t moved into the political forefront yet, but as the volume of this conversation increases, Americans are going to need to decide what role they play in the natural world.

Resources

Primary 

FIsh and Wildlife Service: Endangered Species Act of 1973

Fish and Wildlife Service: ESA Basics

Fish and Wildlife Service: A History of the Endangered Species Act of 1973

Fish and Wildlife Service: ECOS Delisting Report

Fish and Wildlife Service: ECOS Listed Animals

Fish and Wildlife Service: ECOS Listed Plants

Fish and Wildlife Service: Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species Expenditures

Conservation Biology: Six Biological Reasons Why the Endangered Species Act Doesn’t Work–And What to Do About It

Additional

Citizen Review: Everybody Knows They’re Not Really Endangered: We Just Need Them to Stop Mining

Defenders of Wildlife: Conservation Leaders From Congress, Interior & Citizen Groups Decry Bill to ‘Repeal’ Endangered Species Act

National Wildlife Foundation: Endangered Species Act by the Numbers

LA Times: Foe of Endangered Species Act on Defensive Over Abramoff

BBC: Biodiversity: The Sixth Great Wave

Daily Mail: Scientists Use Wasps and Aphids to Prove ‘Domino Effect’ of Extinction

Politifact: Only One Percent of Endangered Species List Have Been Taken Off List

ESA Success: 110 Success Stories for Endangered Species Day 2012

Biological Diversity: Poll: Two-thirds of Americans Want Congress to Strengthen, Protect Endangered Species Act

WND: Repeal the Endangered Species Act

Biological Diversity: A Wild Success

Kelsey Kennedy

Kelsey Kennedy is a freelance editor with degrees in Magazine Journalism and Performance Theatre from the University of Missouri, Columbia (MIZ!). When she isn’t out exploring New York, she loves getting far too invested in characters on the page, stage, and screen. She ultimately wants to make a difference in the world and surround herself with creative people. Contact Kelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Endangered Species Act: Repeal and Reform or Leave it Alone? appeared first on Law Street.

In recent weeks, celebrity Chelsea Handler has created quite a virtual stir by posting revealing photographs of herself on the popular photo-sharing app Instagram, which were subsequently taken down for violating the company’s mature content policy.

Handler’s photos being removed by the site’s admin would seem to be a cut-and-dried case–the second item on Instagram’s Basic Terms is “You may not post violent, nude, partially nude . . . pornographic or sexually suggestive photos or other content via the Service.”

However, the star’s next move was to point out the gender politics at play because men’s nipples are acceptable to show on the site. Here’s a quick rundown of Handler’s Instagram drama that aired on CNN.

It’s worth noting that in the video, they showed a screenshot of the removed post that Handler tweeted, as Twitter’s guidelines are less strict. This ability to reach more than five million Twitter followers without censorship is probably why this specific case of Instagram content removal has garnered so much attention.

And Chelsea Handler isn’t the only famous face to come into conflict with Instagram’s restrictions.

Singer Rihanna’s account was mistakenly shut down after posting photos from a cover shoot for Lui magazine, prompting the fed-up star to leave the site altogether. Actor Scout Willis was banned from the site after posting a photo of a jacket she designed that depicted the torsos of two topless women. Grace Coddington, Creative Director for Vogue, was banned in May for posting a line drawing of herself topless.

Coddington’s image has since been restored to her again-functional Instagram account.

The sheer variety of reasons relating to nudity and the female nipple that people have been banned from Instagram, even temporarily, has sparked conversation among those who would follow Willis’ lead and #FreeTheNipple, or more specifically, erase the stigma that makes the female nipple something to be hidden or censored while males can go shirtless in public or in the media without reproach.

Willis then took her protest to the streets by walking around topless, arguing the fact that something legal in New York City isn’t allowed on Instagram. Newsy explains in the video below.

Willis went on to explain for herself in an article for XOJane, in which she remarks that this censorship doesn’t just apply to celebrities, though their cases are the most obvious examples. She writes, “My situation was in no way unique; women are regularly kicked off Instagram for posting photos with any portion of the areola exposed, while photos sans nipple–degrading as they might be–remain unchallenged.“

In light of the site’s controversy, should nudity continue to be banned on Instagram?

What’s the Argument for Enforcing the Guidelines?

Ultimately, Instagram has laid out its policies in black and white in its ever-ignored Terms and Conditions section, including its right to “modify or terminate the Service or your access to the Service for any reason, without notice, at any time…” Those who run Instagram have the power and the prerogative to dictate how the site is to be utilized by users.

And that’s not to say there’s no reasoning behind Instagram’s guidelines pertaining to nudity and inappropriate content.

In an age where Internet trolls can hide behind their keyboards, the rules can be the difference between a safe space for users and a cyber-bully’s haven. This is especially true for celebrities, whose lives are constantly up for scrutiny in the media and who are often subjected to online harassment, threats, and criticism.

Instagram CEO Kevin Systrom defended the company’s policies in an interview with BBC Newsbeat, saying, “Our goal is really to make sure that Instagram, whether you’re a celebrity or not, is a safe place, and that the content that gets posted is something that’s appropriate for teens and also for adults.”

While only 11 percent of teens had Instagram in 2012, according to Pew Research, this is a demographic the company would be foolish to ignore. By censoring nudity on the site, Instagram is ensuring it won’t be a social media outlet that parents should fear, as 62 percent of parents worry about the kind of content available to their children on the Internet.

The idea of what’s appropriate for viewing can also be applied on a global scale, as in the past few years Instagram has achieved growing success worldwide. According to the site, upward of 65 percent of users are outside the U.S. With a variety of users, creating a standard to minimize discomfort for those in areas that are more conservative is a good way to make sure Instagram can flourish there uninhibited by social restraint.

Against the Guidelines

If a person is offended by the site’s content, he or she could simply unfollow the offending user. For example, if a user is conservative for religious, social, or personal reasons, it might not be the best idea to follow Chelsea Handler, as she is known for her brash and pulls-no-punches comedy.

And even under the nudity guidelines, unfollowing still might be necessary because what is deemed inappropriate by the site’s admin (and by those who flag photos for review because of inappropriate content) seems arbitrary and ambiguous. Take, for example, the cover shoot that caused problems between Rihanna and Instagram. She was featured relaxing in what one assumes is a chair on a beach you can’t see in a hat and pink bikini bottoms. Her nipples are clearly shown.

However, there’s been another photo shoot recently, and it’s caused a lot of buzz–Kim Kardashian posed nude for Paper Magazine. Its photos have been shown across media platforms (sometimes with censoring, sometimes without), including on the star’s Instagram.

Kardashian wasn’t banned, even temporarily, and the content has not been removed. There are no female nipples involved, but there is certainly nudity.

One might question if there were an exception because the photo shoot could be considered art or fashion, but recalling Rihanna’s magazine cover, Scout Willis’ jacket, and Grace Coddington’s drawing invalidates that theory.

Even within Handler’s own account there is ambiguity, but again it comes down to the female nipple as opposed to nudity in general. In one photo that has gone uncontested, Handler is sitting wearing only underwear, but it is taken from an angle that obscures her breasts. In another photo, her naked butt is fully visible and shown side by side with the Kim Kardashian photo above. In the caption, Handler challenges the site with, “Your move, Instagram.”

While they are a central focus for celebrities taking a stand, nipples aren’t the only source of ambiguity on the site, though. Earlier this year, blogger Meghan Tonjes posted a photo of her underwear-clad butt on her Instagram as a statement of body positivity with the hashtag #honormycurves.

Given that her photo is not unique on a site where butt selfies are, indeed, a thing, Tonjes believes her photo was flagged for inappropriate content because of her plus-sized body type. This experience led Tonjes to launch a body positivity campaign on Instagram and YouTube, beginning with the response video included below. In her response, Tonjes shows a variety of photos that haven’t been removed from Instagram that look no different (or, debatably, even more inappropriate) than those images that have been taken down.

[Note: The video automatically skips to around the six-minute mark, but she begins explaining her situation around 55 seconds in.]

Instagram eventually restored the photo to Tonjes’ account with an apology, but not before she could expose some very blatant double standards in the admin’s judgment, as well as the judgment of those who flag photos for inappropriate content because of personal discomfort rather than an overarching problem. Tonjes also points out that there is no appeal process for when content is removed in which a user can defend themselves or their photos.

Conclusion

It is clear that Instagram has some unhappy users, some of whom have decided to terminate their accounts altogether. Should the site acquiesce, which would placate some users and potentially draw in new ones, and risk losing some of their more conservative following?

One potential alternative would be to find a more fair way to enforce the rules the site clearly wants to keep, so those whose photos are removed feel less targeted and alienated. It seems the problem isn’t in the use of guidelines per se, but is rather in the vague nature of the terminology “inappropriate content” and what exactly is considered “nudity” or “partial nudity.” If these terms were clearly defined, the company would have a much more solid argument for enforcing their Terms and Conditions.

Or the site could continue unchanged because ultimately the business has been expanding regardless of a little outrage.

Resources

Primary

Instagram: Instagram Terms of Use

Instagram: Press Page

Pew: Teens, Social Media, and Privacy

Pew: Teenage Life Online

XoJane: I am Scout Willis And This Is The Only Thing I Have To Say About Walking Topless Down The Streets of New York Last Week

Additional 

BET: Rihanna’s Instagram Account ‘Briefly Disabled’

Independent: Instagram Defends Nudity Rules After Scout Willis ‘Nipple Ban’ Topless Protest

Independent: Grace Coddington Banned From Instagram for Posting Topless Line Cartoon

Independent: Scout Willis Topless Instagram Protest

BBC: Instagram Defends Nudity Rules After ‘Nipple Ban’ Protest

Buzzfeed: This Woman’s Butt Selfie Was Banned From Instagram, So She Fought Back

Kelsey Kennedy

Kelsey Kennedy is a freelance editor with degrees in Magazine Journalism and Performance Theatre from the University of Missouri, Columbia (MIZ!). When she isn’t out exploring New York, she loves getting far too invested in characters on the page, stage, and screen. She ultimately wants to make a difference in the world and surround herself with creative people. Contact Kelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Instagram Nudity Problem: What’s the App to Do? appeared first on Law Street.

I am a Libertarian.

Well, I think I’m a Libertarian, and I believe that this is in the same sense that I used to think I was a feminist. (I am definitely a feminist.) But everyone’s idea of what being a Libertarian actually means is still evolving.

The other day, I made this confession of politics to my roommate who is very much a Democrat. (My other roommate is a self-proclaimed Communist–it’s a very interesting household.) He responded, “Oh, so you’re one of those people who doesn’t give a shit what anybody does as long as it doesn’t affect you?” We laughed because he was joking, but it did make me think.

I’ve heard people use the word Libertarian as a replacement for Tea Party (um, no) and in association with Ron Paul (um, yes!). That’s pretty much it for references in daily life, other than the stray notion during the 2012 election that there was this mysterious third party on the fringes of society that could maybe be something someday but probably not because two-party system AM I RIGHT?

So let’s have a chat about what this term really means.

And I’ll go ahead and place my disclaimer here: I’m still learning about Libertarianism (as I think the vast majority of society is). Just as there are nuances for Republicans and Democrats (yes there are), what I think about this party won’t align perfectly with every party member.

Wanting this to be more than what the party means to me, I started where everyone seems to start in 2014–a quick Google search. The first result was the party website. Okay, I thought, this is an excellent sign. If they didn’t have a website, I might have to rethink some things.

The first thing I saw on the website was the party slogan (who knew?), which is “Minimum Government, Maximum Freedom.” Even though these are my beliefs in a grossly oversimplified form, I still started to panic. Is this crazy? Is this a viable point of view? Then, I panicked a little more when I saw the link to a quick political quiz, which asked, “Are you a Libertarian?” I… I don’t know anymore. Am I? Is my whole system of belief a sham? (I imagined the website asking me in an intimidating, booming voice. I don’t know why.)

Well, I took the quiz and easily landed in the little Libertarian sector. My results didn’t show perfect 100 percent Libertarianism, but that wasn’t what I was expecting. (Side note: The quiz is literally ten questions, I highly recommend it just because it’s interesting.)

Having reaffirmed my party choice, I started to explore its values. First, let’s revisit the slogan. While to me “Minimum Government, Maximum Freedom” sounds heavy-handed, “We Should Reduce the Size of Government so Citizens can Have the Utmost Freedom and Control Over Their Own Lives Except When They Need to be Protected from Unjust Harm” just doesn’t have the same snappy ring to it. I would consider “Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative” a strong contender, but it’s probably a bad idea to create a party identity that relies on other parties’ definitions.

Then they have this excellent little table that shows the differences between Libertarians, Democrats, and Republicans; however, it’s a little smart-ass-y and doesn’t go into further details, so I’ll explain a few of these that I think exemplify key Libertarian traits.

On education: “Return control to parents, teachers, and local communities.” Essentially, Libertarians believe education shouldn’t be standardized (or, in my belief, as standardized) so a teacher can find what works for his or her classroom. In addition, not all teaching responsibility should be laid on the school system, as learning starts at home. I realize that one can’t count on all parents to value their child’s education (which is a sentence that makes my heart sad), but right now we’re talking about party ideals, not the complexities of execution.

On the war on drugs: “End it! Release non-violent prisoners. Allow medical cannabis.” Why are we spending taxpayer dollars incarcerating someone who wanted to smoke a little weed? Plus, there’s a grievous sentencing disparity in drug-related crimes. Ignoring the racial aspect of drug arrests (because that’s a whole other blog post), punishment for drug offenses is often just plain excessive. As of January of this year, at least 25 people were serving or had served life in prison for selling pot–and not all were at the top of distribution, either. Life. In. Prison. For a nonviolent crime. While rapists and murderers get released. Let me tell you, I would much rather have someone try to sell me drugs than rape or murder me. And that goes for my hypothetical children, too (since the default argument is always “think of the children”). In addition, if medical marijuana can ease a patient’s discomfort (especially in terminal or very series cases), why would we say no? All pharmaceutical drugs used to treat patients come with risks, too. Quite frankly, I’m a little surprised the chart doesn’t just say legalize marijuana use, but maybe that’s still just a little too radical to put on an entire party’s platform.

On military spending: “Reduce spending dramatically. Defense, not offense.” It’s worth noting that these idealistic cuts in military spending come with cuts pretty much across the board. Libertarians aren’t antimilitary, they just aren’t imperialists. Let’s stay out of other countries unless invited or needed to ensure our own welfare. I agree this gets tricky when atrocities are happening abroad, and I’m all for lending a helping hand in theory, but it’s also not quite kosher to storm another country in the name of help at the cost of hundreds or thousands of lives that get caught in the crossfire.

On taxes: “End the income tax. Abolish the IRS. Never raise taxes.” I realize a good portion of readers just rolled their eyes, and I get it, I really do. I’m not sure if we could ever even get to a point where the IRS could be abolished. But I do firmly believe that our tax system is broken, quite possibly beyond repair. And I think if we can’t end the income tax, it should at least be drastically reduced. I would be a lot more comfortable giving my money to the government if they could manage it responsibly, but they just haven’t proven that yet.

This was a central idea Ron Paul expressed when he came to my alma mater, the University of Missouri — Columbia. I wish I could quote him directly, but it was in 2012. Although this was a nearly spiritual experience for me because it was the first time I heard a politician speak and my views aligned accordingly, I can’t quote the Bible, either. However, Ron Paul did a great interview with Charlie Rose in which he defines Libertarianism as nonintervention.

Note: During the video they make the association with the Tea Party again. I still deny this. Maybe there’s something I don’t get about the Tea Party, but these are still two distinctive groups as I understand them. Maybe the Tea Party is the more socially conservative cousin of Libertarianism?

Now, just because I love Ron Paul doesn’t mean I agree with 100 percent of what he says, but I thought this video contained a lot of really good explanatory moments, as well as a few that would need to be elaborated on or revised completely.

I would say one of the biggest concerns about Libertarianism is that it is idealistic. In an ideal world, people wouldn’t need to be policed. But we don’t live there, and I get that. That’s where compromise comes in. I am all for having some standards in education, and I think even if it’s a personal choice to do meth, there are a lot of social, environmental, and safety risks to its production and use. To me, the point of Libertarianism is pushing the government out of where they aren’t needed and reforming the areas where the government is needed to heal a broken system. Stop creating laws to repeal laws–just abolish the unnecessary or archaic ones. Simplify taxes to where an average human can understand them. Don’t tell a group of people they can’t get married so you don’t have to justify your values to your children.

Maybe this third party is just a way for me to rebel against an infuriating system, but maybe the system as it stands is something worth rebelling against.

Kelsey Kennedy

Kelsey Kennedy is a freelance editor with degrees in Magazine Journalism and Performance Theatre from the University of Missouri, Columbia (MIZ!). When she isn’t out exploring New York, she loves getting far too invested in characters on the page, stage, and screen. She ultimately wants to make a difference in the world and surround herself with creative people. Contact Kelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post I’m a Libertarian, and You Just Might Be Too appeared first on Law Street.