The jury in the Taylor Swift groping lawsuit ruled in favor of the pop star after four hours of deliberation. Swift counter-sued former Colorado radio host David Mueller for grabbing her behind at a meet-and-greet in 2013. Previously he had sued her for $3 million, claiming that her accusations were false. That suit was dismissed by a judge last week, but yesterday, the jury found in favor of Swift in her counter-suit. Mueller will have to pay her $1 in damages, an important symbolic victory for the pop star.

For Swift, this was more than a case of “he said, she said.” She hopes to inspire more victims of sexual assault to come forward. Swift recognized the uniqueness of her ability to launch a countersuit in which she was only seeking $1. After the verdict, she said: “I acknowledge the privilege that I benefit from in life, in society and in my ability to shoulder the enormous cost of defending myself in a trial like this.”

According to Swift, she posed with Mueller at a meet-and-great in 2013, and he reached under her skirt to grab her butt. One of the key points of contention was a photo from the event. In it, Mueller’s hand is clearly below Swift’s back. He claimed that he had just touched her ribs, Swift says that’s when he grabbed her bare butt. Her bodyguard and the photographer testified that they had seen him grope her as well, and her mother testified about the conversation they had in the immediate aftermath in which Swift disclosed what had happened to her.

Mueller was fired from his position as a radio host two days later. In addition to suing Swift, he also sued her mother and her radio promotions director Frank Bell. He claimed that Andrea Swift and Bell told his bosses, leading to his firing. They were both found not liable as well.

Swift has said that she plans on donating to organizations that aid women who have suffered from sexual assault. And she acknowledged that as one of the most recognizable pop stars in the world, she has a unique ability to be a role model for young women, as did her lawyer, Doug Baldridge. He stated during closing arguments: “By returning a verdict on Ms. Swift’s counterclaim for a single symbolic dollar, the value of which is immeasurable to all women in this situation…You will tell every woman…that no means no.”

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Taylor Swift Vindicated With Groping Lawsuit Win appeared first on Law Street.

Throughout the campaign and the beginning of his presidency, President Donald Trump has criticized a lot of different people. But there is one group that he has consistently attacked with passion and fervor like no other: “The Media”

His attacks are blunt and relentless, he has gone after world-renowned organizations like the New York Times, and has even posted a video meme of himself attacking a CNN icon, calling it the “Fraud News Network.”

#FraudNewsCNN #FNN pic.twitter.com/WYUnHjjUjg

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

Wow, the Failing @nytimes said about @foxandfriends “….the most powerful T.V. show in America.”

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 27, 2017

He contends that these major news corporations are “enemies” to his administration because they consistently post critical stories.

But now Trump seems to have found a solution to counteract “Fake News”… his own “Real News”. On Sunday, the Trump presidential campaign announced a short weekly segment on its Facebook page called “Real News.” The show aims to be a brief two minute recap of news about the Trump Administration, straight from Trump Tower. The show is hosted by Kayleigh McEnany, a Trump-supporting CNN pundit, who resigned from her position at CNN to work on the show as well as become a spokesperson for the GOP.

While the resources to produce the show are not directly coming from Trump himself, investigative reports from The Daily Beast and Mic show that the effort is being spearheaded by Lara Trump, the president’s daughter-in-law. The money is coming from a PAC that is raising money for Trump’s reelection campaign.

Though the show aims to produce so-called “real news,” it seems to focus more on touting Trump’s accomplishments than anything else. In the two minute segment McEnany discussed Trump’s new immigration policy, data that showed global economic confidence at an all-time high, and Trump awarding a medal to a Vietnam veteran.

It’s fair to note that this is not the first time a president has had his own “information” show. Obama’s administration hosted a weekly video series titled “West Wing Week,” which discussed the activities going on in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue during the week. Nevertheless people all over social media couldn’t get enough of the idea of Trump TV and its quest for “real news.”

Donald Trump’s “Real News” seems kinda familiar. pic.twitter.com/TAMDYHGtXq

— Zac Richey (@the_zacsta) August 2, 2017

This is the person reporting the “Real News” from Trump Tower on Trump TV.

In New York.

The End. https://t.co/tgyWJMWk9S

— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) August 7, 2017

The left must be going crazy knowing #Trump TV is “Real News”
Those who laugh last, laugh best!#MAGA #DrainTheWashingtonSwamp #YesWeWill pic.twitter.com/43erYELDin

— Joel Fischer (@JoelFischerNYC) August 7, 2017

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Trump’s “Real News” Sparks Social Media Reactions appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday, New York police arrested Nathaniel Glover, also known as Kidd Creole, for fatally stabbing a homeless man.

Surveillance footage shows the 57-year-old rapper getting into an argument with the victim on Tuesday, police told the New York Times. The altercation took place at around 11:50 p.m. at the intersection of East 44th Street and Third Avenue. TMZ reports that the victim used a “gay slur,” which caused Glover’s angry reaction. It is not clear if or how the two men knew each other before the argument.

As the fight escalated, Glover stabbed the victim multiple times in the torso. EMS took him to Bellevue Hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

The New York Daily News identifies the man as 55-year-old John Jolly. He lived in a homeless shelter in Lower Manhattan, about two miles from where Glover allegedly stabbed him. According to a police statement, he was a level two sex offender who served five years for beating and raping a 42-year-old woman in 1997. Jolly appeared to be drunk on the surveillance footage.

Glover, a Bronx native, works near the crime scene as a handyman and security guard. He confessed to the murder and told police that he was “extremely remorseful” for his actions.

He was charged with second-degree murder, which carries a maximum sentence of life without parole. There is no information on his lawyer as of yet.

“That is so sad, I’m really in shock right now,” Glover’s 72-year-old neighbor told the New York Daily News. “He was the sweetest man I’ve ever met. Everybody liked him, I’m really about to cry.”

Glover was one of the founding members of Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five, a hip hop group active during the 1980s. They reached mainstream fame with their 1982 single “The Message,” which reached Number 62 on the Billboard Top 100. The group was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2007. They were the first hip hop group to reach that milestone.

The Furious Five was supposed to perform at the Dell Music Center in Philadelphia on August 20. Following Glover’s arrest, Live Nation removed the event from its concert listing. Neither the band nor the music center have commented on Glover’s arrest.

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rapper Kidd Creole Charged with Murder appeared first on Law Street.

Kanye West is well know for his eccentricities.

So when he went on a Trump-praising, Jay Z-dissing rant in November 2016 during one of his Saint Pablo tour stops, it didn’t come as much of a surprise. His eight-day stay at a Los Angeles psychiatric center for “exhaustion,” however, drew whispers in the music community and shocked fans. The mental breakdown led to a canceled tour and thousands of disappointed fans–and now a $10 million lawsuit.

West’s touring company Very Good Touring filed the lawsuit against Lloyds of London, the firm charged with insuring his tour, alleging that the company is stalling on paying out claims relating to the tour’s cancellation.

A loss claim was filed two days after West was hospitalized at the UCLA Neuropsychiatric Hospital Center, but his touring company still hasn’t been paid more than eight months later. The lawsuit alleges that the insurer is trying to blame West’s marijuana usage on the mental breakdown.

“[Lloyds] have neither paid on the multi million dollar claim nor denied the claim,” states the complaint filed Tuesday in a California federal court. “Nor have they provided anything approaching a coherent explanation about why they have not paid, or any indication if they will ever pay or even make a coverage decision, implying that Kanye’s use of marijuana may provide them with a basis to deny the claim and retain the hundreds of thousands of dollars in insurance premiums paid by Very Good.”

The lawsuit continues: “The stalling is emblematic of a broader modus operandi of the insurers of never-ending post-claim underwriting where the insurers hunt for some contrived excuse not to pay.”

The tour insurance was expected to guard against non-appearances and cancellations due to unforeseen perils such as illness. According to the lawsuit, an independent medical examination of West by a doctor hand-selected by the insurer’s counsel confirmed that he was “in no condition to resume the tour.”

West’s lawyers also accused the insurers of leaking his personal medical information to the press in the complaint.

“Plaintiff is informed and believes that the ‘planting’ of the Confidential Information with news outlets … was part and parcel of Defendants’ efforts to impair Plaintiff’s rights to the indemnity payments due under the Insurance Policies,” states the complaint, which nods to a non-disclosure agreement between the parties.

West is not suing the three additional insurance companies that insured his Saint Pablo tour, as they have already paid Very Good Touring for the cancellation.

Read the full lawsuit below.

Kanye West Lloyds by gmaddaus on Scribd

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kanye West Sues Insurer for $10M Over Canceled Saint Pablo Tour appeared first on Law Street.

After a four-year hiatus, Kesha is finally back to belting out pop hits, but that doesn’t mean her legal saga with music producer Dr. Luke is anywhere close to being over. In fact, the contentious court battle has managed to entangle another female pop star: Lady Gaga.

In the latest series of events, Luke’s legal team subpoenaed Gaga to testify in his defamation lawsuit against his former protégée, after several unsuccessful attempts to get her testimony on the record.

Gaga was subpoenaed in relation to a text message conversation between her and Kesha that was submitted into evidence last year, in which Kesha allegedly asked “The Cure” singer to join a “smear campaign” against him. Luke’s lawyers claim Gaga even spread a statement urging Sony Music to cut ties with Luke, according to court documents.

“Dr. Luke’s counsel served a subpoena on Lady Gaga because she has relevant information regarding, among other things, false statements about Dr. Luke made to her by Kesha,” Luke’s lawyer said in a statement on Saturday. “This motion has become necessary because Dr. Luke’s counsel has not been able to obtain, despite repeated request, a deposition date from Lady Gaga.”

Dr. Luke, real name Lukasz Gottwald, sued Kesha for defamation after she claimed he drugged, raped, and emotionally abused her. Gaga showed public support for Kesha throughout her years-long sexual assault case against Luke–including tweeting the popular hashtag #FreeKesha.

There are people all over the world who love you @KeshaRose. And I can say truly I am in awe of your bravery.

— xoxo, Gaga (@ladygaga) February 19, 2016

Gaga’s legal team responded to the subpoena with the following statement to Variety over the weekend:

As Lady Gaga‘s legal team will present to the court, she has provided all of the relevant information in her possession and is at most an ancillary witness in this process. Dr. Luke’s team is attempting to manipulate the truth and draw press attention to their case by exaggerating Lady Gaga‘s role and falsely accusing her of dodging reasonable requests.

Unfortunately, we can’t look at the text exchange for ourselves, because the judge sealed the messages between Gaga and Kesha, making the content confidential.

Now that the subpoena has been issued, Gaga will be required to set a date to appear in-person for a three-hour deposition. Many other celebrities are expected to provide testimony as well in the case.

In July, Kesha made a triumphant return to music with her emotional first single “Praying,” which appears to be inspired by her conflict with Luke. The track will appear on her brand new album “Rainbow”–her first in five years–which is expected to be released in August.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lady Gaga Dodges Dr. Luke Subpoena in Kesha Defamation Case appeared first on Law Street.

Orenthal James “OJ” Simpson, the Hall of Fame NFL running back who was once lauded for his speed and ability to escape defenders on the field is now equally as recognizable for his ability to escape lengthy prison sentences.

On Thursday, a Nevada Parole Board unanimously voted 4-0 in favor of granting OJ Simpson an early release on his 33-year sentence for a bizarre incident that took place in a Las Vegas hotel in 2007. Simpson, along with other armed men, attempted to reclaim sports memorabilia items that he claimed were stolen from him. Simpson was convicted of armed robbery, attempted kidnapping, and assault in 2008 and is set to be released as early as October 1.

But Simpson is far more notorious for his involvement in what was known as “the trial of the century. ” He was accused and eventually acquitted of murdering his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman in Nicole’s home in Brentwood, California in June of 1994.

Tony Corda, one of the parole commissioners on the hearing, cited as his reasoning that Simpson was at “low risk to re-offend” and the board felt that he had served enough time based on his criminal actions as well as his good behavior in prison.

During his hearing Simpson expressed remorse for his actions, saying: “I am sorry the things turned out the way they did…I had no intention to commit a crime.” But Simpson also expressed that he felt that he had served his time and that he deserved to become a free man.

So what are the legal ramifications for Simpson’s parole? His parole will likely be set to expire on September 29, 2022. Based on Nevada law he must submit written reports to his parole officer every month, and he will be subjected to random drug and alcohol screenings. If he violates the terms of his parole in any way he can be sent back to prison.

He did indicate to the parole board during his hearing that if granted parole he wished to return to his home state of Florida, saying: “I can easily stay in Nevada, but I don’t think you guys want me here,”

Whether this request will be granted or not depends on a couple of factors. Florida has to first confirm that Simpson is eligible to complete parole in the state, and he needs to have an approved place to live. The home that he bought in Miami in 2000 was foreclosed upon in 2012, so that seems like an unlikely destination for now.

But money shouldn’t be a big problem for Simpson, despite the fact that he is still responsible for paying damages from a multi-million dollar lawsuit to Ron Goldman’s family. He is still receiving his NFL pension. Based on his time in the NFL, ESPN estimated that OJ could have made up to $600,000 while in prison.

Simpson had managed to live a relatively media-free life since his conviction, but after the release of two enormously successful television series based on his life, he has been thrust back into the pop culture news scene. So when word broke that Simpson will be getting out of prison, social media exploded:

OJ Granted Parole! @RealDonaldTrump, You got a position for OJ in your Administration. This Murderer is gonna need a job! #OJSimpsonParole pic.twitter.com/7nF6si1Izx

— stacey roberts (@1sroberts) July 20, 2017

OJ Simpson has been granted parole. As awful as it is, the board had to follow the law + not consider past behavior he wasn’t convicted for

— Yashar Ali (@yashar) July 20, 2017

POLL: Should OJ Simpson be granted parole? 888-788-9910 #ToddStarnesShow #OJSimpsonParole

— toddstarnes (@toddstarnes) July 20, 2017

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post OJ Will Be Free: Here’s What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

Russia is all over the news right now, and given that art imitates life, you’d think that we’d start to see this national concern spill over into our box offices any day. But the opposite phenomenon may be taking place–studios are reportedly writing Vladimir Putin storylines out of their movies. The studios are apparently concerned that they will fall victim to hacking if they insert the Russian leader into their films.

According to the Hollywood Reporter, two movies in particular have gotten this type of editing. “Red Sparrow,” which stars Jennifer Lawrence and is slated to come out next March, is based on a book that features Putin quite heavily. Although the screenplay went through a number of revisions, the Putin character was dropped and never brought back. There’s also “Kursk,” which tells the true story of a Russian submarine that sank in 2000. Despite the fact that Putin appeared in the book on which the movie will be based, and earlier drafts of the screenplay, he’s missing from the movie itself.

The fears of hacking are by no means unfounded. In 2014, Sony released “The Interview,” which poked quite a bit of fun at North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. Sony was hacked, and in the months that followed, thousands of emails and other files containing confidential information were leaked. North Korea is widely believed to have been behind the attack. It’s safe to assume that Russia has hacking capabilities that are the very least on par with those of North Korea.

Of course, Russia claims that the whole controversy is silly. According to the Russian-government controlled Sputnik News, the Kremlin doesn’t care about Hollywood depictions of Putin. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told the news service, “We do not know anything about these movies. We do not know, who is filming them and what they are about. It is not our topic.” Since that’s pretty tough to believe, it makes sense that movie studios aren’t taking any chances.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Putin Storylines Cut from Movies Out of Hacking Fears appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this week, Rob Kardashian published explicit photos of ex-fiancee Blac Chyna on Twitter and Instagram. Now, lawyers and experts say he could face criminal charges for revenge porn.

On Wednesday, Kardashian uploaded a series of posts to Instagram, accompanied by nude photos of Chyna, accusing her of cheating on him, taking advantage of him financially, and using drugs and alcohol in the presence of their seven-month-old daughter, Dream Renee Kardashian.

Instagram shut down Kardashian’s account almost immediately, but the reality star quickly moved to Twitter to continue the rant.

I truly thought Chyna wanted to be a family and that’s why I was so loyal to her but I learned my lesson and everyone else was right

— ROBERT KARDASHIAN (@robkardashian) July 5, 2017

The public feud quickly entranced all of Twitter, with the least-famous Kardashian sib’s tweets receiving hundreds of thousands of likes and retweets. “Poor Dream” even became a trending topic along with both of her parent’s names.

Chyna used social media to respond to Kardashian’s attacks, sharing since-deleted accusations to her Snapchat story that Kardashian physically abused her.

“Rob u did all this but u beat me up and try act it never happen!!!!!” Chyna wrote on Snapchat. “U put hand on me I swear on god!!!! On my kids but I’m supposed to be quiet because you’re a Kardashian.”

Kardashian and Chyna’s tumultuous relationship has been the primary source of their fame over the past year and a half. The pair first went public as a couple in January 2016, and Kardashian proposed three months later. Soon after, the couple announced they were expecting a child. Chyna has a child with rapper Tyga, who dated Kardashian’s sister, Kylie Jenner. Part of Kardashian’s Twitter post accused Chyna of having their child “out of spite” over Jenner’s relationship with Tyga.

Reports surfaced in February that the on-and-off-again couple had called off their engagement. The couple’s unlikely pairing and tumultuous relationship was the basis of their reality show spin-off “Rob & Chyna.” The show has been renewed for a second season, but it’s unclear how this development will affect it.

Was it Revenge Porn?

The nude photos Kardashian posted online without Chyna’s consent could be considered revenge porn, especially if Kardashian’s intent was to “cause substantial emotional distress or humiliation” to Chyna. Revenge porn is illegal in two-thirds of the U.S., including in California, where both celebrities reside. The misdemeanor crime carries a penalty of up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine.

Revenge porn is also known as non-consensual pornography, or cyberexploitation, since it does not always involve an act of “revenge,” like in Kardashian’s case. Several instances have involved hackers leaking nude photos of victims, which can also fall under the revenge porn laws.

Though no charges have been officially brought as of yet, several experts have said Kardashian’s posts were most definitely an act of revenge porn.

Chyna’s lawyer Lisa Bloom, who represented actress Mischa Barton in a similar case, warned Kardashian on Twitter that revenge porn is a crime and a form of violence.

Note to Rob Kardashian: revenge porn is a crime. And in my Mischa Barton case judge agreed it’s a form of domestic violence. Knock it off.

— Lisa Bloom (@LisaBloom) July 5, 2017

“It’s disgusting,” Bloom told the Washington Post. “It’s a very modern way of being misogynistic.”

“The main point of it is that even if Chyna sent him nude photos, if she didn’t want them posted publicly, the law protects her,” Bloom told The Post.

Carrie Goldberg, an attorney who specializes in sexual privacy and started a firm dedicated to the topic, told the Post that Kardashian’s “slut shaming” posts show that he intended to harm Chyna.

“With the accompanying words, there can be no misgivings about his intent,” Goldberg said.

Chyna’s lawyers are reportedly exploring “all legal remedies and protections available,” and are pursuing a restraining order against Kardashian.

I represent Blac Chyna. I just gave Rob Kardashian notice that we’ll be in court Monday seeking restraining orders against him. More to come

— Lisa Bloom (@LisaBloom) July 7, 2017

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rob Kardashian Could Face Revenge Porn Charges, Experts Say appeared first on Law Street.

The main organizer of Fyre Festival has been arrested and charged with wire fraud, according to court documents that were unsealed Friday.

Billy McFarland, 25, is accused of defrauding investors in his company, Fyre Media, and Fyre Festival. The now-infamous music festival was promoted on social media by models and celebrities, who touted it as a luxurious paradise in the Bahamas for those who could afford the $1,500 (minimum) ticket price. But when Fyre Festival attendees arrived on the island, they described it as a “post-apocalyptic nightmare.”

McFarland could face up to 20 years in prison if found guilty, according to a release from the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York. McFarland was released on $300,000 bail Saturday, after a hearing that focused largely on McFarland’s wealth and lavish lifestyle.

According to the criminal complaint, McFarland, as founder and CEO of Fyre Media and its subsidiary, Fyre Festival, misrepresented his company’s earnings and his personal wealth, and “perpetrated a scheme to defraud individuals by inducing at least two investors to invest approximately $1.2 million.”

“McFarland promoted the Fyre Festival in part by claiming that it would bring a global audience together to share a life changing experience,” the complaint reads. “Ultimately, the Fyre Festival was widely deemed to have been a failure.”

The complaint was sworn to by Brandon Racz, a special agent with the F.B.I. who is assigned to the White Collar Fraud squad in the agency’s New York Division. At least two individuals were identified in the complaint as having invested $1.2 million in Fyre Media and Fyre Festival. However, investigators believe there could be more than 80 investors involved, according to the New York Times.

Fyre Media began as an website through which users could book artists and celebrities for events. McFarland allegedly distributed documents to potential investors, claiming that the company had pulled in millions of dollars in revenue from these bookings. However, the company had really earned less than $60,000.

McFarland also misrepresented his personal wealth, according to the complaint. In one example, McFarland provided at least one investor with documents that purported to show that he owned more than $2.5 million in stock in a particular company. In reality, he only owned less than  $1,500, and had altered a Scottrade account statement to make it appear that he owned more.

In the press release, Joon Kim, the acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, called Fyre Festival a “disaster.”

“As alleged, William McFarland promised a ‘life changing’ music festival but in actuality delivered a disaster,” Kim said. “McFarland allegedly presented fake documents to induce investors to put over a million dollars into his company and the fiasco called the Fyre Festival. Thanks to the investigative efforts of the FBI, McFarland will now have to answer for his crimes.”

McFarland’s co-organizer, rapper Ja Rule, has not been arrested. The pair face more than a dozen lawsuits related to Fyre Festival, including one seeking $100 million in damages for disappointed Fyre-goers.

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fyre Festival Organizer Arrested, Charged With Wire Fraud appeared first on Law Street.

Yesterday, June 26, marks the 20th anniversary of the publication of “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone,” which began the worldwide phenomenon that captured the attention of millions across the globe. In the 20 years since the first book was published, the Potter series is still culturally relevant, and has become especially notable in the past year since President Donald Trump rose to power.

J.K. Rowling, who authored the books, has taken a strong stance against Trump and what he represents; she can often be found on Twitter mocking the American president. Whether it’s about Trump’s responses to terrorist attacks or his ridiculous actions, Rowling is quick to criticize Trump, often delighting her youthful fan base. Here are just two examples of the millionaire’s social media commentary:

It’s called ‘leadership’, Donald. The terrorists were dead 8 minutes after police got the call. If we need an alarmist blowhard, we’ll call. https://t.co/NUiy9j4fBt

— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) June 4, 2017

 

I wonder whether Trump talks to Trumpself in the third Trumperson when Trump’s alone. https://t.co/8CEzVTJjBq

— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) May 3, 2017

Rowling’s presence on Twitter isn’t the only way Harry Potter fans are staying connected to the series as they resist the Trump Administration. Many fans have compared Trump to Voldemort, the antagonist of the series who comes to power and attempts to create a society of “pure blood wizards.” This Twitter user broke down her feelings on the similarities between the two:

I realized how similar Lord Voldemort and Donald Trump are so I wrote this… pic.twitter.com/UG33ZTUfYf

— Ashley C. (@ItsAshley_C) June 25, 2017

Others have turned to Hermione Granger, the main female protagonist, as a symbol of female power within the resistance. The reason Granger is so appealing to young girls, the Huffington Post argues, is that “here was a smart, hyper-competent, over-achieving woman facing down a cartoonishly unqualified man who spewed hatred at women, Muslims, immigrants, refugees, and disabled people.”

a nation of hermiones #WomensMarch pic.twitter.com/hvfDu3oL9m

— Paige (@paigeleighannne) January 22, 2017

Given that Emma Watson, who portrayed Granger in the movies, is a feminist symbol herself, the comparison becomes even more applicable. Watson, who graduated from Brown University in 2014, is an outspoken feminist and a UN Women Goodwill Ambassador.

While the comparisons offer children the opportunity to tangibly relate the real world to something they understand and love, some people are frustrated with the constant comparisons. One writer from The Federalist even argued that the comparisons “contribute to making our politics glib, emotion-driven, over-simplified, and posturing. At the same time, it takes beloved childhood stories and politicizes them in a way that narrows and diminishes their meaning.”

Others are simply tired of the constant references:

READ ANOTHER BOOK pic.twitter.com/SHcVKcTslG

— T. Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) January 31, 2017

The final book of the series was published back in 2007, but the series remains culturally relevant as a symbol of youth fighting for justice. Some people may be annoyed by the constant references to the series, but Rowling’s writing has clearly inspired a generation of readers to protest for what they believe in just as Harry, Hermione, and Ron Weasley did throughout the seven book series.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 20 Years Later, Harry Potter is Still Culturally Relevant appeared first on Law Street.

Megyn Kelly’s exclusive interview with Infowars.com head Alex Jones aired on Sunday night on NBC News, but ultimately faced more criticism than praise.

The much-anticipated interview drew 3.5 million viewers, according to Nielsen ratings, putting it even with a rerun of “America’s Funniest Home Videos” and two million viewers behind a rerun of “60 Minutes.” Kelly’s two previous shows earned 0.7 and 4.9 million viewers respectively.

Kelly and NBC faced plenty of criticism prior to the airing from those upset with the national platform given to Alex Jones, a famous right-wing personality who is often accused of spreading false facts and conspiracy theories. He is perhaps most infamous for claiming that the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School was a hoax.

Critics accused Kelly of promoting Jones, a man who many blame for spreading fake news and riling up his angry, right-wing supporters. These complaints were only fueled by the fact that the interview aired on Fathers Day. Many pled with NBC to not air the segment, but only NBC affiliates in Connecticut, where the Sandy Hook shooting occurred, elected not to show the interview.

Kelly, a former Fox News host, has long been under public scrutiny and her transition to NBC has made her more mainstream. Many at NBC put their faith in Kelly, believing she was destined to be a “super star” but one anonymous television executive believes her ceiling is as a “cable star,” according to CNN. So, many were upset that she was using her new platform to normalize Jones and his radical, oftentimes racist, theories.

Plenty of advertisers withdrew their sponsorship in response to the interview, including JPMorgan Chase, according to The Hill. On a local scale, several ads were pulled from the air, according to CNN. JPMorgan Chase CMO Kristin Lemkau “requested that its local and digital ads not be placed adjacent to any broadcast or stream of the segment,” according to Jezebel.

As an advertiser, I’m repulsed that @megynkelly would give a second of airtime to someone who says Sandy Hook and Aurora are hoaxes. Why? https://t.co/luwyCwP7Ti

— Kristin Lemkau (@KLemkau) June 12, 2017

In order to make up for this issue, NBC ran several public service announcements, normally reserved for less desirable time slots, according to Variety. Additionally, there were an unusual number of NBC promotions and repeated advertisements during the broadcast, indicative of the network’s scramble to fill ad breaks.

Those upset with the interview were emboldened when Jones released audio of Kelly promising him that the interview wouldn’t be a “gotcha hit piece” and that it would leave “the left” impressed. But it’s traditionally against journalistic ethics to promise interview subjects that you will make them look as good as possible.

In the end, Kelly’s interview with Jones may have caused more trouble for NBC than it was worth. Now it will matter if these ramifications will have a long term effect. Will big advertisers, like JPMorgan Chase, return to NBC and Kelly’s show specifically? As for Kelly’s ratings, they peaked with her pilot episode and haven’t come close to those levels since.

NBC expected big things out of Kelly when she moved from Fox, but after a tumultuous first month she may be in more trouble than expected. Nowhere to go but up…right?

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Megyn Kelly’s Interview with Alex Jones Sparks Negative Reactions appeared first on Law Street.

After essentially defeating Theresa May’s attempted Brexit referendum disguised as a special election, British Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn has decided to bask in the glory of his newfound popularity by joining the demographic that most supported his movement–the youth. He chose a place in which you’re most likely to find them in the summer: a music festival.

No, Corbyn won’t be performing alongside headliners Radiohead, Foo Fighters, and Ed Sheeran. Instead, he will be introducing American rap group Run the Jewels (RTJ), known for their lyrics about social issues and left wing politics, onto the main stage. This was a welcome surprise to Killer Mike, the MC of RTJ, who seemed to find out about the announcement just this morning.

Having a Wow moment: https://t.co/lZYRhW3CGe ✊✊✊✊✊

— Killer Mike (@KillerMike) June 16, 2017

During the American election season and Democratic primaries, Killer Mike put his support behind Bernie Sanders, who he considers a close friend and famously interviewed in a barbershop in Atlanta. The use of his platform for political advocacy has now gone beyond the borders of the United States. At London’s Field Day festival earlier this month, the MC encouraged the crowd to vote Labour in support of Jeremy Corbyn.

This should come as no surprise to those who have followed Corbyn’s campaigning closely. Before the election, he received support from UK grime MCs Stormzy, Novelist, and JME, was pictured on the cover of Kerrang! alongside British bands Creeper and Architects, and made an appearance on stage during Reverend and the Makers’ set at Wirral Live music festival.

Corbyn was scheduled to appear at the festival last year, but the vote for Brexit unfortunately derailed that cameo. To commemorate his return, Michael Eavis, the 81-year-old founder of Glastonbury Festival, will be joining the leader of Labour on stage. Eavis is a strong supporter of Corbyn’s stances on nuclear disarmament and anti-austerity, and is just a fan of the man in general.

“We’re Corbyn fans, that’s the thing,” Eavis told the Guardian. “He’s got something new and precious, and people are excited about it. He really is the hero of the hour.”

Even though they will be the ones actually performing, Run the Jewels might have a tough time following the support the Labour leader will probably receive on stage, according to exit polls. NBC News’ British partner, ITV News, estimated youth turnout was at 72 percent, well above the 43 percent that showed up to vote in 2015. Online polling site YouGov found that approximately 64 percent of those surveyed between 18-29 voted for Labour, as opposed to 36 percent in 2015.

Corbyn’s campaign might have even inspired more young people to vote for the first time. Just before the deadline for voter registration in 2015, 137,400 signed up, while 246,487 did so this year. Many of those attending the festival will be looking forward to cheering on their candidate of choice after an election that was referred to by some as “the revenge of the young on the old.”

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Jeremy Corbyn to Introduce Run the Jewels at Glastonbury appeared first on Law Street.

Fox News started making moves to drop its well-known slogan “Fair and Balanced” from programming last year. The network has since instructed producers, hosts, and reporters to only refer to the network’s other slogan: “Most Watched, Most Trusted.” According to a source at the company, a new slogan could be coming soon.

The change was first noted by Roger Ailes’ biographer in a story in New York Magazine. According to the Fox News’ statement on the slogan, the change was not prompted by editorial or a programming decision. Rather, insiders believe the move was made to further distance the company from the legacy of Roger Ailes, who created the iconic slogan back in 1996. Ailes was ousted from Fox News last year after accusations of sexual harassment while working at the company. The network stopped using the phrase shortly after Ailes left his position as CEO of the network.

For Ailes and Fox, the “Fair and Balanced” slogan was a sort of doctrine, and a huge part of company culture. Ailes would host meetings and seminars based around the slogan, and would not hire reporters if he felt they didn’t come across as “fair and balanced” in his eyes. Most importantly, it gave the appearance to those who watched the network that both sides were being heard while still producing conservative-leaning content.

While the phrase may have shaped the modern cable landscape as we see it today, that hasn’t stopped Twitter from having a ball (as per usual) with the fact that Fox News will no longer be calling itself “Fair and Balanced.”

Fox News is apparently ditching the “fair and balanced” bit and going with something more nuanced. pic.twitter.com/xysOUMVlx6

— TK (@TKhatesyou) June 14, 2017

If a fig leaf falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? https://t.co/smvjLrKWkZ

— Keith Olbermann (@KeithOlbermann) June 14, 2017

Fox News saying they are no longer “fair and balanced” is like McDonalds saying they are no longer “healthy”.

It was never the case, kids.

— TrumpsTaxes (@TrumpsTaxes) June 14, 2017

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post “Fair and Balanced” Slogan Out at Fox News: What’s Next? appeared first on Law Street.

Things took a quick turn for the worse when HBO “Real Time” host Bill Maher was chatting with Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse. After Sasse asked Maher if he would be willing to come work in the state, Maher responded by using a racial slur traditionally used to target and oppress African-Americans.

Sasse did not react and the studio audience applauded the “joke.”

Bill Maher just said the n word, @BenSasse didn’t look horrified, and the audience applauded. pic.twitter.com/kFAs1S3dyM

— Yashar Ali (@yashar) June 3, 2017

This incident, as would be expected, sparked outrage. Celebrities from both sides of the aisle reacted with either support for Maher or disdain for his insensitive word choice.

Chance the Rapper immediately hopped on Twitter and asked HBO to cancel the show.

Please @HBO Do Not Air Another Episode Of Real Time With Bill Maher.

— Lil Chano From 79th (@chancetherapper) June 3, 2017

Wayne Brady didn’t make a plea to HBO. Instead he simply said, “I told you so.”

I tried to tell people… https://t.co/P8YXL6TflM

— Wayne Brady (@WayneBrady) June 3, 2017

While those celebrities were angry with Maher, rapper Killer Mike didn’t want to dwell on it. Mike, who endorsed Bernie Sanders in the 2016 election, sees larger problems that the black community faces and wanted to focus on those. He tweeted: “black have BIGGER things than N***ER to concern our selves with: Black Banks, Gentrification, Economics & Trade Education. Love, My N***a.”

While some expressed outrage, there was also support for Maher. Fellow talk show hosts Piers Morgan and Larry King defended Maher and hoped that people could move on.

I hope @billmaher doesn’t get fired. Yes, he cracked a dumb, offensive joke. But he’s no racist & America needs his voice, brain & humour. pic.twitter.com/LLn49rCdtz

— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) June 5, 2017

I’ve been a friend of @billmaher‘s for years and there’s not a racist bone in his body. Let’s accept his apology and move on.

— Larry King (@kingsthings) June 3, 2017

Even non-celebrities like former Democratic National Committee Chair Donna Brazile pled that society can accept Maher’s apology.

Bill Maher Apologizes for Use of Racial Slur on ‘Real Time’ https://t.co/iHTloTZpDV. Let’s accept his contrition and move on.

— Donna Brazile (@donnabrazile) June 4, 2017

With celebrities spanning the entire political spectrum, there was both support and disdain for Maher after his actions. While HBO officials did not take Chance’s advice and cancel the show, they did release a statement condemning his words.

“Bill Maher’s comment last night was completely inexcusable and tasteless. We are removing his deeply offensive comment from any subsequent airings of the show,” HBO said.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Celebrities on Twitter React to Bill Maher’s Use of a Racial Slur appeared first on Law Street.

Comedian Kathy Griffin faced swift backlash after the photo in which she posed with a fake severed head that looked like President Trump. And since, she has continued to receive threats. In a press conference on Friday, she repeated her apology, but said that it is outrageous and unprecedented that the President of the United States is personally trying to “ruin a comedian.”

Standing next to her lawyer, Lisa Bloom, she said, “I don’t think I will have a career after this. He broke me.” She said that people fell into some kind of mob mentality and that death threats started rolling in. Her video apology doesn’t seem to have had much effect on public scrutiny, and she was also reportedly contacted by the Secret Service, which is now investigating her.

After the controversy, Griffin has lost several jobs, including five stand-up gigs and her annual job as co-host of CNN’s New Year’s Eve program. She has hosted that show for 10 years. Griffin said the Trump family is bullying her by exercising its influence on private companies as well as the public sector, calling for everyone to fire her.

Kathy Griffin on fallout over photo: “Regarding the image that I participated in, that apology absolutely stands. I feel horrible.” pic.twitter.com/ffqhfnijKf

— ABC News (@ABC) June 2, 2017

“He’s the president of the United States,” Bloom said. “This is outrageous and unprecedented.” She added: “For the first time in history that we are aware of, the President of the United States and his family has personally attempted to ruin a comedian. The message was clear: Criticize the president, lose your job.”

Bloom also pointed out what many people on social media already have said: President Obama had to withstand a number of threats during his time in office. Musician Ted Nugent made threats against him and Hillary Clinton, but was recently invited to the White House.

“Obama, he’s a piece of s—. I told him to suck on my machine gun. Hey Hillary, you might want to ride one of these into the sunset, you worthless b—-,” Nugent said on a stage appearance in 2007, while holding two machine guns. In April, he had dinner with Trump in the White House.

It’s reprehensible what Kathy Griffin did, & the left has denounced it.
Ted Nugent did it to Obama, & your dad invited him to the WH. https://t.co/jhOGmr4egG

— Laurie Crosswell (@lauriecrosswell) May 30, 2017

A lot of people started calling out the Trumps for having a double standard, and when Press Secretary Sean Spicer was asked about the controversy during Wednesday’s press briefing, he just said he didn’t know what Trump’s response was at the time.

After the bipartisan outrage at the photo shoot, at least two celebrities have come to Kathy Griffin’s defense. “I still love Kathy Griffin. She went past the line, she’ll pay for it in the way she pays for it, and we’ll go out and we’ll laugh with her again,” said Jamie Foxx to Entertainment Weekly. And Jim Carrey agreed–he said when a president does the type of “crazy things” that Trump is doing, comedians are the “last voice of truth.” “I think it is the job of a comedian to cross the line at all times — because that line is not real,” he said.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kathy Griffin Says the Trump Family is Trying to Ruin Her Life appeared first on Law Street.

Remember the outrage over the supposed “pink slime” in our meat a few years ago? While the outrage seemingly died down quickly, a South Dakota-based meat producer is suing ABC, senior national correspondent Jim Avila, and news anchor Diane Sawyer for those reports, claiming that they were defamatory.

The company, Beef Products, Inc. (BPI), was the focus of a series of reports Avila did in 2012. In the reports, Avila described a practice BPI uses, where it supplements its ground beef with meat from trimmings of the cow, including muscle and connective tissue. According to BPI, this is a common procedure, and it’s totally fine to eat. Additionally it lessens the fat content of ground beef. BPI called this addition “finely textured beef product” but ABC and Avila called it “pink slime.” The name “pink slime” was first dubbed by a former USDA microbiologist in an email around the agency. Here’s an example of Avila talking about the “pink slime.”

BPI is now suing for defamation, claiming that the news reports seriously damaged its business. It claims that ABC either knew it was providing false information, or acted with a reckless disregard for the truth. In terms of proving harm, the company says that its business seriously suffered because of these highly-publicized reports. It argues that it had to lay off approximately 700 workers and close three plants as a result. BPI says that its weekly sales were cut in more than half–from five million pounds a week to less than two million pounds a week.

ABC is arguing that it disseminated the information responsibly. After all, it never claimed that “pink slime” was unsafe to eat, just that consumers had the right to know what was in the food they were purchasing.

The trial is currently underway–jury selection just finished up today. Given the sheer amount that BPI is asking for–the company is claiming damages as high as $1.9 billion, but Eriq Gardner of the Hollywood Reporter explains that the potential verdict could get as high as $5.7 billion–the case is one to watch.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Beef Company Sues ABC for Calling its Meat “Pink Slime” appeared first on Law Street.

Less than two hours before it was set to premiere in Beirut, Lebanese officials banned the new “Wonder Woman” film, because its lead actress, Gal Gadot, is Israeli. In recent years Lebanon, which has been at war with Israel for decades, has censored films it deems incendiary or offensive, including films that critique religion or involve homosexuality or Israel.

Despite a successful early screening of the film on Tuesday, a six-member committee of Lebanon’s Ministry of Economy pulled the plug on the film hours before its official premiere. Other Arab nations, including Egypt, Morocco, Oman, and Bahrain are still expected to screen “Wonder Woman” in the coming weeks.

Lebanon and Israel most recently fought a war in 2006, and have not had a diplomatic relationship for decades–Lebanese citizens are not allowed to visit Israel, and vice versa. Over the past few months, at least, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), which Gadot served in for two years, has bombed arms shipments in Syria it says are destined for Hezbollah, a militant group based in Lebanon. The U.S. and Israel both consider Hezbollah, largely funded by Iran, a terrorist organization.

Previously released films starring Gadot–including the last two “Fast & Furious” installments, and “Knight & Day”–hit box offices in Lebanon and did quite well. The Campaign to Boycott Supporters of Israel led a vocal push to ban “Wonder Woman,” however, and in the end, was successful.

Elie Fares, a popular Lebanese blogger, suggested that the ban might not be the result of Gadot’s nationality, but more that “the movie features strong independent female characters which our patriarchy cannot propagate?” He added:

What’s next, though? Banning every single movie that dares to be associated in any way with Israel? Banning every actor or actress who’s set foot in Israel? Deciding not to show any feature film that has any entity that remotely agrees with anything Israel does? Why don’t we just ban ourselves from everything commercial in the world and be done with it?

Lebanese authorities have a history of banning–or heavily editing–films they deem offensive. The 2016 Egyptian film “The Preacher,” a commentary on religion and power, was only released in Lebanon after it was edited to the satisfaction of the authorities. Last year, the Lebanese film “Beach House” was banned, because it features friends discussing their conflicting Arab identities together. In 1994, Lebanon, along with other Arab countries, banned “Schindler’s List,” a film about the Holocaust.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lebanon Bans Screenings of New “Wonder Woman” Film appeared first on Law Street.

Kathy Griffin apologized for going “way too far,” after a photo surfaced online of the comedian posing with a bloodied decapitated head, modeled to look like President Donald Trump. In a 30-second video posted to Twitter late Tuesday, Griffin said that she “sincerely” apologizes.

“I’m a comic,” she said. “I cross the line. I move the line, then I cross it. I went way too far. The image is too disturbing. I understand how it offends people. It wasn’t funny. I get it…I am going to ask the photographer to take the image. I went too far. I made a mistake and I was wrong.”

I am sorry. I went too far. I was wrong. pic.twitter.com/LBKvqf9xFB

— Kathy Griffin (@kathygriffin) May 30, 2017

The images leaked to TMZ were shot by controversial photographer Tyler Shields. Griffin was reportedly inspired by a 2011 episode of “Game of Thrones,” which featured a severed head modeled after former President George W. Bush.

Griffin initially defended the photo, likening it to Trump’s controversial comments about Megyn Kelly’s menstrual cycle.

“1/ I caption this “there was blood coming out of his eyes, blood coming out of his…wherever” Also @tylershields great Photog/film maker,” she wrote. “2/ OBVIOUSLY, I do not condone ANY violence by my fans or others to anyone, ever! I’m merely mocking the Mocker in Chief.”

According to TMZ, Griffin even “joked that she and Tyler would need to move to Mexico once the pics got released, for fear they’d be thrown in prison,” during the photo shoot.

Trump responded to the image Wednesday morning on Twitter, saying Griffin “should be ashamed of herself,” and that Barron was “having a hard time with this.”

Kathy Griffin should be ashamed of herself. My children, especially my 11 year old son, Barron, are having a hard time with this. Sick!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 31, 2017

The first lady also had some choice words for the comedian.

“As a mother, a wife, and a human being, that photo is very disturbing,” Melania Trump said in a statement. “When you consider some of the atrocities happening in the world today, a photo opportunity like this is simply wrong and makes you wonder about the mental health of the person who did it.”

The image managed to unite much of the country, receiving bipartisan outrage on social media.

This is vile and wrong. It is never funny to joke about killing a president. https://t.co/zIiuKoMyFw

— Chelsea Clinton (@ChelseaClinton) May 30, 2017

Disgusting but not surprising. This is the left today. They consider this acceptable. Imagine a conservative did this to Obama as POTUS? https://t.co/QdghcbIjS7

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) May 30, 2017

This Kathy Griffin thing is so upsetting and disgusting. Jesus–what is wrong with people today? Have we lost all our humanity?

— Soledad O’Brien (@soledadobrien) May 30, 2017

All of it frankly makes me sick. And seeing these actions only through a lens of partisanship or self is bizarre to me.

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) May 31, 2017

Our politics have become too base, too low, & too vulgar, but Kathy Griffin’s post descends into an even more repugnant & vile territory.

— Mitt Romney (@MittRomney) May 30, 2017

Following the backlash, Griffin, who has been the longtime co-host of CNN’s annual New Years Eve coverage, was fired from the network Wednesday.

CNN has terminated our agreement with Kathy Griffin to appear on our New Year’s Eve program.

— CNN Communications (@CNNPR) May 31, 2017

Anderson Cooper, Griffin’s friend and NYE co-host for the past decade, condemned the photo on Wednesday.

For the record, I am appalled by the photo shoot Kathy Griffin took part in. It is clearly disgusting and completely inappropriate.

— Anderson Cooper (@andersoncooper) May 31, 2017

There’s no word yet as to whether or not this will affect her other partnerships, or upcoming comedy tour.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kathy Griffin Apologizes for Bloody Anti-Trump Photo Shoot appeared first on Law Street.

Rebel Wilson, the Australian comedienne known for her roles in movies like “Pitch Perfect” and “Bachelorette” has spent the last few days in an Australian courtroom. Wilson has sued the parent company of Australian Magazine Woman’s Day, Bauer Media, for defamation. She claims that the magazine published false claims that she had lied about a variety of facts of her life–including her age and upbringing–and that as a result, she has lost work opportunities.

In 2015, Woman’s Day released a series of eight articles in three days about Wilson. The first, which was headlined “Just who is the REAL Rebel?” claimed that she had fabricated some of the details of her life, and according to Wilson’s lawsuit, essentially painted her as a serial or pathological liar. The articles specifically suggested she lied about her age, her real name, and her upbringing. But there doesn’t appear to be evidence that Wilson ever misrepresented her age, and she has been open that “Rebel” is not her birth name, but a nickname that she later changed her name to. The articles also claimed that she had attended an elite boarding school when she was younger, while Wilson has maintained that she was raised in a more rural area.

According to the lawsuit, the information used for the articles came from an anonymous source who claimed to have gone to school with Wilson. The writer of the articles, Shari Nementzik, saw an online comment made by the anonymous source on another Woman’s Day article, and reached out to her. Emails between Nementzik and the source revealed that the source was looking for money to talk about what she “knew.” Originally, it appears as though lawyers told Woman’s Day the story was too risky, legally speaking, to publish. But the information was still published in 2015.

Wilson claims that after the articles were released, her career took a hit. She testified in court earlier this week that she lost roles in the animated films “Trolls” and “Kung Fu Panda 3” after the articles came out, and she has struggled to find work ever since. The trial is ongoing, and Wilson is seeking unspecified damages.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rebel Wilson Sues Australian Magazine for Defamation appeared first on Law Street.

Four of the Duggar sisters, who appeared on the former TLC show “19 Kids and Counting” have filed a lawsuit after the police reports that implied their brother Josh Duggar had sexually abused them were disseminated to the media. Jill Dillard, Jessa Seewald, Joy Duggar, and Jinger Duggar (the two older sisters are married and have changed their names) have filed a federal breach-of-privacy lawsuit against the city of Springdale and Washington County, Arkansas, as well as some officials involved in the investigation, and In Touch.

Stories about Josh’s abuse surfaced in 2015, but the abuse claims stem from 2006. The police reports were released as the result of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request made in 2015 by In Touch. In Touch approached the city officials for the documents after an anonymous tipster came to its writers with claims about Josh Duggar. The sisters argue that when they talked to the investigators in 2006 they were told that the information would be kept confidential, and under Arkansas’ FOIA rules, interviews with minors cannot be disclosed.

Essentially the sisters argue that the FOIA request shouldn’t have been complied with on the officials’ part, or at the very least the documents should have been heavily redacted. The documents provided to In Touch were somewhat redacted–in that the names of the girls and Josh were blacked out, but they still contained the names of their parents. According to the lawsuit it was easy to determine who the victims were based on that information. The sisters are seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. They have also released a statement, claiming that the filed the lawsuit to protect abuse victims in the future from breaches to their privacy

“19 Kids and Counting” was cancelled after the allegations about Josh Duggar, and his parents’ horrific choice to cover up the abuse. Duggar allegedly sexually abused five girls when he was a teenager–four were his sisters–by fondling them while they slept. After those revelations, sponsors began pulling out of the show, and it was cancelled by TLC. Additionally Josh Duggar, who was working at the time at the incredibly conservative Family Research Council, resigned from his job.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Duggar Sisters Sue Tabloid and Police After Stories About their Brother’s Abuse appeared first on Law Street.

Alanis Morissette’s former business manager was sentenced Wednesday to six years in prison for embezzlement after stealing $4.8 million from the singer-songwriter. He will also have to pay $8.6 million–nearly twice the amount of money he stole from her–in restitution.

Jonathan Todd Schwartz worked for the firm GSO Business Management that handled the private finances of artists like Katy Perry, 50 Cent, and Tom Petty. He admitted to having stolen the money from Morissette between 2010 and 2014, as well as $2 million more from five other unnamed clients.

The theft was discovered when Morissette hired a new manager to look over her finances. According to USA Today, Schwartz accused Morissette of having drug problems and being mentally unstable when first confronted about the missing money. He also falsely claimed he invested the money in an illegal marijuana growing business. Later he admitted to lying, placing the blame on a gambling addiction.

In January, Schwartz agreed to plead guilty on charges of wire fraud and tax crimes. He could have received more than 20 years in prison, but the plea deal resulted in a shorter sentence. Morissette previously sued Schwartz, but dropped the suit after he was arrested.

Isn’t it moronic: @Alanis Morissette manager sad over ‘stupid’ theft https://t.co/4139PxxzSI pic.twitter.com/jY7h0q558K

— Star-Advertiser (@StarAdvertiser) May 4, 2017

In April, Schwartz penned a guest column for the Hollywood Reporter to tell his side of the story. While trying to explain why he made the choices he made, he said that his father was a gambling addict who abandoned the family.

“At first, I ‘borrowed’ a little from clients, with the hopes that I would pay them back if I won that night’s bet,” he wrote. “That snowballed, and as I kept losing, I kept stealing.”

But prosecutors didn’t buy it. They said he used the money to finance his extravagant lifestyle and hadn’t showed any true regret, despite crying in court and saying that he will spend the rest of his life asking for forgiveness.

“Every expression of remorse he has made and every purported act of self-improvement he has taken occurred only after he realized he had no ‘choice’ to do otherwise,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Ranee Katzenstein said.

For Morissette, the worst part about the embezzlement was not the money, but the betrayal by someone she trusted. In her court testimony, Morissette said her ability to trust has been “shaken to the core.”

“He did this in a long, systematic, drawn-out and sinister manner,” she said.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Alanis Morissette’s Ex-Manager Sentenced to Prison for Embezzlement appeared first on Law Street.

Fyre Festival has officially been dubbed the new “Hunger Games” or “Lord of the Flies” by the media and may go down in history as one of the worst music festivals ever. Now, it’s being slammed with a $100 million lawsuit. Fyre Festival, organized by artist Ja Rule and entrepreneur Billy McFarland, promised white beaches, Victoria’s Secret models, and top notch live music. Instead, visitors were met by nonexistent infrastructure, sparse food, and some rickety tents.

On Sunday, attendee Daniel Jung filed a lawsuit against the organizers through the law firm Geragos & Geragos. It seeks to be a class action lawsuit, as the festival chaos affected more than 1,000 people. Jung paid $2,000 for his ticket and airfare. But his attorney Ben Meiselas tweeted that just refunding the ticket price would not be enough. The suit seeks more than $100 million in damages for Jung and the other guests.

Fyre Festival organizers Ja Rule and Billy McFarland are being sued for $100 million in a class action lawsuit: https://t.co/0taHRmeAnh pic.twitter.com/mJNIjGx3oh

— E! News (@enews) May 1, 2017

The lawsuit describes in detail just how bad it was on the island for the guests, and it does really sound like something out of a movie.

Attendees’ efforts to escape the unfolding disaster were hamstrung by their reliance upon Defendants for transportation, as well as by the fact that Defendants promoted the festival as a ‘cashless’ event — Defendants instructed attendees to upload funds to a wristband for use at the festival rather than bringing any cash. As such, Attendees were unable to purchase basic transportation on local taxis or busses, which accept only cash. As a result of Defendants’ roadblocks to escape, at least one attendee suffered a medical emergency and lost consciousness after being locked inside a nearby building with other concert-goers waiting to be airlifted from the island.

The suit also described the event as a “post-apocalyptic nightmare” and said that people had to survive on bread and slices of cheese. The tents were exposed on a sand bar, rain soaked, and wind battered.

The “gourmet cuisine” this weekend was included in the ticket cost. We are being fed salads and ham and cheese sandwiches out of this tent pic.twitter.com/MRv7U0RiyM

— dylan (@DylanACOP) April 28, 2017

But the worst part is that organizers, according to the lawsuit, knew all about the state of the festival area beforehand but didn’t warn attendees. They had allegedly been aware for months that the area was not ready for a festival and that it could be dangerous. There was no infrastructure for food or accommodations and contractors left the site, as they hadn’t been paid.

Defendants were knowingly lying about the festival’s accommodations and safety, and continued to promote the event and sell ticket packages. The festival was even promoted as being on a ‘private island’ once owned by drug kingpin Pablo Escobar–the island isn’t private, as there is a ‘Sandals’ resort down the road, and Pablo Escobar never owned the island.

To make matters worse, Ja Rule and McFarland started reaching out to artists and celebrities personally to warn them not to come. But they still didn’t let attendees know until the morning of the first day of the festival. By then, many guests were already on the island, without sufficient food or water or any way to get back. The lawsuit goes so far as to call the situation “tantamount to false imprisonment.”

However, many people online were amused by the fact that only rich people could afford to attend. Tickets started at $1,500 and went up to $250,000 for a special VIP package. Also, the Wall Street Journal warned a month ago that it didn’t seem like everything was alright, as the organizers still hadn’t paid performers or confirmed booked flights.

Ja Rule took to Twitter to “apologize” after all the outrage on social media last week, although he claimed it wasn’t his fault.

pic.twitter.com/KuJYxfsQJ4

— Ja Rule (@Ruleyork) April 28, 2017

McFarland said in a Rolling Stone interview that their vision of the festival “took on a life of its own” and that they “were a little naïve in thinking for the first time we could do this ourselves. Next year, we will definitely start earlier.”

And yes, there will actually be a “next year.” As if this year’s total fiasco wasn’t enough, the duo said they will have a festival on an American beach next year. On the online form where attendees could sign up to receive a refund for their tickets, there was the option to receive VIP passes for the next festival in 2018 instead of a cash refund. It’s unknown how many people jumped at that offer.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Fyre Festival Fiasco: Ja Rule Hit With $100 Million Lawsuit appeared first on Law Street.

Bill O’Reilly’s departure from Fox News is being touted as a victory against the vitriolic reporting of the network. After multiple sexual harassment lawsuits against the cable anchorman became public, sponsors began pulling ads from the show to the point that Fox leadership decided to cut their losses and dismiss O’Reilly. But will that move actually change anything about Fox News?

“The O’Reilly Factor” was an incredibly popular program and producers scrambled to fill the profitable 8 p.m. weekday time slot that draws almost 4 million viewers each night. Tucker Carlson has been chosen from the Fox News bench to fill O’Reilly’s shoes. While he might not have the same popularity or fame as O’Reilly, Carlson’s dismissive views of women hardly make him a departure from the O’Reilly Factor era. For those who don’t regularly tune in to Fox News, Carlson is best known for his program “Crossfire”–which Jon Stewart famously tore to pieces in 2004. This year, Carlson replaced Megyn Kelly after her decision to leave Fox–so it would appear that Carlson is making a habit of replacing more popular hosts.

O’Reilly may be leaving Fox in disgrace, but the moral judgment passed on him does not translate into financial ruin. O’Reilly is receiving a $25 million payout upon his exit, a far greater sum than any of the women who sued him received, which is equal to one year of his salary. He will no doubt be invited to speak on cable news shows and on the lecture circuit, and already has a book deal to further augment his income.

Other media outlets might have taken O’Reilly’s departure as an opportunity to demonstrate a commitment to reform. Fox News could have hired outside of its existing anchor network, a true break from tradition. Even once the executives decided to hire in-house, they could have gone with a candidate with more experience with O’Reilly’s viewers–like host Laura Ingraham, who filled in for O’Reilly on multiple occasions. Ingraham tows the party line at Fox so hiring her would guarantee viewer retention while simultaneously serving as a gesture of respect towards female anchors at the network.

After Megyn Kelly’s departure, which O’Reilly reportedly contributed to, Fox had a chance to step back and address the pervasive sexism that female staff have faced at the network–a chance executives did not take. Representative Maxine Waters, who was personally attacked by O’Reilly, went so far as to call Fox News a “sexual harassment enterprise.” By appointing Carlson, the Fox team has only reaffirmed the culture O’Reilly and Roger Ailes built together at Fox. The window dressing might change, but the 8 p.m. weekday slot–and Fox News as a whole–will be the same, whether or not O’Reilly is at the helm.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Why Bill O’Reilly’s Departure Won’t Change Fox appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday, Rogue Music Alliance, an independent music label based in Vancouver, Washington, sent out a press release announcing that a new EP from Prince was set to come out on Friday–the one-year anniversary of the Purple One’s death. However, Prince’s estate and Paisley Park Enterprises have hit the EP’s sound engineer, George Ian Boxill, with a federal lawsuit with the aim of stopping Friday’s release, according to a report from KSTP.

The lawsuit came only hours after RMA’s press release that revealed details about the six-song EP, called Deliverance. According to the press release, Deliverance includes six songs, all of which were recorded from 2006-2008, and were co-written and co-produced by Boxill. The bluesy title track was also released on Tuesday and can still be heard on iTunes, Apple Music, and Soundcloud.

The lawsuit, according to Minnesota’s KSTP, was filed in federal court after a suit filed in a district court was withdrawn in order to compensate for the fact that Boxill currently resides in California. KSTP reports that the district suit–which we can assume is almost identical to the aforementioned new federal suit–claimed that Boxill is holding a number of unreleased Prince tracks that are valued at over $75,000 and is threatening to release them. That would do irreparable damage to Prince’s business relationships and privacy as well as violate a confidentiality agreement that Boxill signed in the studio. In the suit, Prince’s estate is requesting for the recordings to be returned.

In the RMA press release, Boxill claims the decision to release Deliverance through an independent label is something that “Prince would have wanted.” “Prince once told me that he would go to bed every night thinking of ways to bypass major labels and get his music directly to the public,” Boxill is quoted as saying in the press release.

As many people have pointed out, especially the popular tech blogger and Prince superman Anil Dash, Boxill’s statement seems to be completely disingenuous when one looks at the history of Prince’s desire to not release his infamous “vault” of thousands of songs and video projects, as well as pop culture urban legends like “A Song Called Wally.”

“Prince cared very deeply about control & ownership of his recordings,” Dash tweeted in a thread. “[H]e spent decades fighting the legacy of black artists having their creative work stolen or exploited. This seems like exactly that.”

Disputes over Prince’s expansive back catalogue have come to the surface ever since the singer’s death last year. In February, as Variety reported, Universal Music Group announced that it had required the rights from Prince’s estate. However, as The Wall Street Journal reported, UMG is seeking to nullify the deal and get its money back as a number of the recordings that the company was promised in the deal still belong to Prince’s original label Warner Bros. Records, which struck a deal with the singer in 2014 after almost 20 years of estrangement.

As of this morning, Deliverance is still set to drop on Friday with a physical release set for June 2.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Prince’s Estate Files Lawsuit to Block Release of New Music appeared first on Law Street.

A new season of the hit TV show “Veep,” starring Julia-Louis Dreyfus, will premiere this weekend. And given that politics in real life, with President Donald Trump in the White House, have become increasingly gaffe-worthy, many fans were nervous to see how the show would (or wouldn’t) change. It actually turns out that one joke, about a “golden shower,” had to be edited out, because it was just a little too on the nose given a story about Trump that broke just a few months ago.

A Hollywood Reporter guest column by David Mandel, the current “Veep” showrunner, described how it’s difficult to tell if people are still willing to laugh at politics after Trump’s election. After all, so many facets of the Trump Administration feel like they’re straight out of a “Veep” storyline. Look no further for example, than the New York Times story about how Trump staffers: “confer in the dark because they cannot figure out how to operate the light switches in the cabinet room.”

And after Press Secretary Sean Spicer recently made astonishingly stupid comments about the Holocaust, someone made a Spicer-“Veep” mashup that Dreyfus herself ended up tweeting out.

This feels like an Emmy winning episode to me.https://t.co/DU4o08Ot2P

— Julia Louis-Dreyfus (@OfficialJLD) April 12, 2017

But the new season of “Veep” will pick up with Selina Meyer, the main character, about a year after she lost her own election for president. And the writers and others involved in the show made it clear that they’re glad to have a “former president” storyline instead of spoofing a real-life Trump.

However, Mandel did write about one specific storyline that had to be edited out:

So much of Veep is often just sitting around thinking: “What’s the dumbest thing that could happen?” They’re doing stuff that we couldn’t invent if we tried. The only thing we did have to change –it sounds like a bad joke, but it’s true–was a ‘golden shower’ joke in one of the episodes where someone is yelling at Jonah [Timothy Simons] about a golden shower. We hadn’t filmed it yet, and we realized, ‘Oh, we need to change that’ [because of the Trump-Russia dossier]. Who knew we would literally have to change a Veep golden showers joke because of the real president of the United States of America? It doesn’t get any weirder than that.

So, while “Veep” will come back this weekend, the show may feel a little different (although likely just as funny!) And there’s only Trump’s real life comedy to blame for that.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A “Veep” Presidential Problem: Comedy in the Age of Trump appeared first on Law Street.

You might have thought that Bill O’Reilly’s exchange with Maxine Waters was the most racist thing to come out of Fox News yesterday. But, details from a new lawsuit filed by two of the network’s black female employees may have overshadowed O’Reilly’s horrific moment.

According to a report from the New York Times, the two employees–Tichaona Brown and Tabrese Wright, both of whom worked at the network’s payroll department–filed a lawsuit in the New York State Supreme Court, citing that they were subjected to “top-down racial harassment,” from Judith Slater, the Fox comptroller who had worked for the network for almost two decades. Slater was fired after an internal investigation, according to a story first reported by The Wrap. The timeline of Slater’s firing is unclear, but a statement from the network obtained by the Times claims that Slater was fired at the end of February.

Brown and Wright’s lawsuit targets Slater, Fox News, and 21st Century Fox, which owns Fox News. The lawsuit claims that Slater repeatedly made racist and disparaging comments about black people that played into egregious stereotypes, and that the network did not do much to address Slater’s behavior, which made for a hostile work environment. Here are some of the lawsuit’s details as reported by the New York Times:

The women . . .  accused Ms. Slater of making numerous racially charged comments, including suggestions that black men were “women beaters” and that black people wanted to physically harm white people.

They also said that Ms. Slater claimed that black employees mispronounced words, such as ‘mother,’ ‘father,’ ‘month’ and ‘ask,’ and that she urged Ms. Brown to say those words aloud in a meeting. Ms. Wright said Ms. Slater once asked if her three children were all ‘fathered by the same man.’

[…]

The suit also includes allegations that Ms. Slater made disparaging comments about Ms. Wright’s hair and credit score. She and Ms. Brown said Ms. Slater had mocked the Black Lives Matter movement and referred to their majority-black department as the ‘urban’ or ‘Southern’ payroll department.

According to the New York Daily News, the suit also alleges further details of Slater’s racist behavior, including, but not limited to responding to Brown’s goodbyes at the end of the day by raising her hands up in the “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” movement, referring to her commuter train to New Jersey as the “Bombay Express, expressing her belief that Chinese men have small penises, and asking Brown and Wright to teach her how to beat box.

In a statement reported by the Times, the company said that “there is no place of inappropriate verbal remarks like this at Fox News,” but were disappointed that Wright and Brown filed the lawsuit because the company believes it already took swift and appropriate action to remedy the situation.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Fox News Hit With a New Lawsuit Alleging Racial Harassment appeared first on Law Street.

Want to see the new “Beauty and the Beast” movie in Malaysia? Be our guest.

Disney’s live-action remake of the classic animated film won a small victory in the country recently, despite efforts from its censorship board to ban the film over the decision to depict one of the characters, LeFou, as a gay man. 

Malaysian censorship officials pushed to cut scenes suggesting that LeFou is gay, but Disney refused to edit it and the film’s postponed release date is now set for March 30 with a PG-13 rating.

Movies that feature gay characters can only be shown in Malaysia if the characters are portrayed negatively or renounce their sexuality. Malaysia is among a handful of countries, where homosexuality is either outlawed or condemned, that have tried to hinder the movie’s release.

In Russia, the film, which is rated PG in the U.S., has been restricted to viewers aged 16 and older. “Beauty and the Beast” was also pulled from cinemas in Kuwait, where an edited version might return to screens soon. Meanwhile, a group of churches in Singapore has issued a warning about the movie to parents.

The controversy can likely be traced back to the U.S., where, before the movie even came out, a drive-in owner in Alabama said he would refuse to show it because he opposed the inclusion of a gay character on religious grounds.

So what exactly happened in the film to spark such a global scandal? It turns out, the representation of a gay character may actually be overhyped. LeFou is a sidekick to the villain Gaston, and it is implied throughout the story that he has an unrequited crush on Gaston. One scene shows LeFou dancing with another male character for about three seconds, but he never explicitly reveals his sexuality.

If anything, the scene–which director Bill Condon described as an “exclusively gay moment”–deserves criticism for being too subtle, according to some LGBT advocates. Bustle’s Martha Sorren writes:

I can acknowledge that Condon has taken a (small) step forward with this scene, but I’m certainly not going to praise the director and cast for representing the gay community when they did so little to represent us.

Sorren adds that LeFou’s effeminate gestures reinforce stereotypes about gay men, and that his unreciprocated feelings for Gaston could cause “straight people–especially the young viewers who will undoubtedly see ‘Beauty and the Beast’–to think that their gay friends are going to develop creepy, obsessive crushes on them.”

Sorren’s concerns echo those about another beloved children’s tale that stars Emma Watson. In 2007, J.K. Rowling revealed that the character Albus Dumbledore from the Harry Potter series is gay, but critics were disappointed that she never made this clear in the books or movies, and questioned whether she was just tossing in a token gay character as an afterthought.

Though Disney has taken steps to expand racial diversity in its movies in recent years, members of the LGBT community hope to see the studio create more characters like them. Last spring, some fans of the movie “Frozen” started a campaign to give the main character, Elsa, a girlfriend in the sequel.

And then, of course, there’s this perspective:

imagine boycotting beauty & the beast because of a gay character while being totally cool with a teenage girl falling in love with a buffalo

— Tyler Oakley (@tyleroakley) March 5, 2017

It’s certainly not a Disney production without a happy ending. Disgruntled fans could not stop “Beauty and the Beast” from becoming a box office hit. In fact, boycotters who complain about too many women or people of color in Disney’s movies have never had much success before–just look at the attempts to bring down the company’s first “Star Wars” film, “The Force Awakens,” two years ago.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “Beauty and the Beast” to Premiere in Malaysia Despite Controversy over Gay Character appeared first on Law Street.

O.J. Simpson received renewed attention over the past year, thanks to the miniseries “American Crime Story: The People v. O.J. Simpson” and the Oscar winning documentary “O.J.: Made In America.” And now it seems like things are good for the former NFL star and accused murderer; TMZ reports that many reality TV producers are scrambling to sign him if he is released early from prison in October. According to TMZ, some production companies reacted with disgust to the suggestion, while some were pretty eager to capitalize on Simpson’s fame.

Simpson is currently behind bars for armed robbery and kidnapping, which he was convicted of in 2008. He was supposed to serve 33 years, but he is now scheduled for a parole hearing in July that could lead to an early release. Simpson is not new to the reality show sphere; apart from starring in some movies and TV shows, he also participated in an early prank show called “Juiced.”

The talk about a new reality show is only speculative for the moment, and it is far from certain that he will be released in October, but the reports have already created some mixed feelings on social media.

@TMZ @vibe ESPECIALLY IF HE’S BEHIND YOU BUYING SOME GLOVES

— Morris Corley (@avenger2000es50) March 10, 2017

@HOT97 WTF i just woke up what is going on here

— Princyboy (@princyboy71) March 10, 2017

@CNN just let him out. Who really cares, #Trump is President, and the @Cubs won the @WorldSeries. The end of the world is clearly near.

— The Politcal Pulse (@Politicalpulse1) March 8, 2017

A reality show with Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson called “Killin It”

— Ryan Broems (@ryanbroems) March 2, 2017

Simpson also wrote a memoir, called “If I Did It,” which bizarrely went through how he would have killed his ex-wife Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, if he had been the perpetrator. The book was ghostwritten by writer Pablo Fenjves and according to reviews, it read like a confession. Simpson also took part in a TV special for Fox, but it never aired. According to TMZ, the TV episode featured Simpson reading a passage from the book in which he seemed to confess to the murders. Public outcry led to Fox killing the show.

This would probably also be the problem if a new production featuring Simpson became reality–even if someone produced it, there’s the risk that broadcast and cable networks would refuse to air it and it could be hard to find advertisers. But given that these reports appear to be for real, you can never say never when it comes to reality tv.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Would You Watch an O.J. Simpson Reality Show? appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, Felix Walworth received the contract from the organizer of the music festival he would soon be playing, South by Southwest (SXSW). “If SXSW determines, in its sole discretion, that showcasing acts or their representatives have acted in ways that adversely affect the viability of their official SXSW showcase, the following actions are available to SXSW,” the contract said. It listed a number of consequences, including: “SXSW will notify the appropriate U.S. immigration authorities of the above actions.”

Walworth, whose band Told Slant was slated to perform at the festival in Austin, Texas next week, promptly tweeted his response:

After looking through this contract sent to me by sxsw I have decided to cancel Told Slant’s performance at the festival pic.twitter.com/rI2Xv0duJl

— Told Slant (@Felixixix666) March 2, 2017

Unlike other festivals that focus on a few major headliners and medium-level acts, SXSW, which had its inaugural festival in 1987, is one of the world’s premier showcases for emerging artists. According to Roland Swenson, the festival’s managing director, 62 international artists are slated to perform at this year’s festival. This year, SXSW will feature an event called “Contrabanned: #MusicUnites,” which will host acts from countries affected by President Donald Trump’s failed travel ban.

After Walworth, also a member of the bands Eskimeaux and Bellows, canceled his performance, Swenson issued a statement. “We were sorry to learn that one of our invited performers chose to cancel his performance at this year’s SXSW Music Festival due to a misunderstanding of our policies regarding international artists,” he said. Swenson continued:

We understand that given the current political climate surrounding immigration, the language that was published seems strong. Violating U.S. immigration law has always carried potentially severe consequences, and we would be remiss not to warn our participating acts of the likely repercussions.

Swenson said the clause in question is intended as “a safeguard to provide SXSW with a means to respond to an act that does something truly egregious, such as disobeying our rules about pyrotechnics on stage, starting a brawl in a club, or causing serious safety issues.”

Other artists, 35 as of Friday afternoon, joined Walworth in demanding SXSW to apologize, and to “immediately drop this clause from their contract.” In a letter directed at SXSW, the artists said: “SXSW is a well respected institution and has a responsibility to show leadership by refusing to collaborate with the government’s campaign of fear and hate toward non-citizens.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SXSW Contract Threatens to Report Artists to U.S. Immigration Authorities appeared first on Law Street.

Last year, the Academy Awards faced a lot of criticism for being too white, as not a single person of color was nominated in any category as an actor. But this year saw a dramatic change, with a record high number of people of color being recognized. And a record-breaking total of six black actors were nominated across the acting categories.

It was an evening of firsts: Viola Davis won the Oscar for best supporting actress in “Fences,” which makes her the first black woman to win an Oscar, Emmy, and Tony for acting. Mahershala Ali became the first Muslim actor ever to win an Oscar, for his supporting role in “Moonlight.” It was also the first time a wrong winner has been announced. After it was announced that “La La Land” won for best film, the movie’s cast and crew were already halfway through their victory speeches when staff ran up on stage to announce that “Moonlight” was the real winner.

What is now being talked about as the worst blunder in Oscars history took away some of the epic-ness of “Moonlight’s” win–it was the first movie with an all-black cast to win. “La La Land” producer Jordan Horowitz said into the microphone, “There’s a mistake. Moonlight, you won best picture,” before insisting it wasn’t a joke. “Moonlight” director Barry Jenkins was clearly taken aback and walked to the stage to standing ovations. “Very clearly, even in my dreams this could not be true,” he said.

The event was hosted by Jimmy Kimmel, who attempted to save the situation, joking “I blame Steve Harvey for this,” referring to when Harvey announced the wrong winner in the 2015 Miss Universe pageant. Then he jokingly shouted at Warren Beatty, who had read the wrong envelope, “Warren, what did you do?!” The incident shocked many people on social media.

This is still my reaction to that mixup and #moonlight winning the Best Picture Oscar almost 30 min later #Oscars pic.twitter.com/nnW2clUhIS

— Betty Bloop (@flgal83) February 27, 2017

Throughout the evening, Kimmel repeatedly made jabs at President Donald Trump, starting off with, “this broadcast is being watched live by millions of Americans and around the world in more than 225 countries that now hate us.” He also called for people to give the totally “overrated actress” Meryl Streep a round of applause, referring to when Trump criticized her after the Golden Globes.

#Oscars @jimmykimmel takes down “overrated” Meryl Streep’s “lackluster” career in film: https://t.co/qQpyXghz4Y pic.twitter.com/JLyrSCIoAM

— Matt Wilstein (@TheMattWilstein) February 27, 2017

Later Kimmel said he was worried about the president because he hadn’t seen a tweet from him for several hours, so he tweeted at him on live TV.

Hey @realDonaldTrump u up?

— Jimmy Kimmel (@jimmykimmel) February 27, 2017

But not even Kimmel made it through the whole evening without a gaffe. After Mahershala Ali’s acceptance speech, Kimmel joked about his name, and immediately faced backlash from the internet for his rather tone deaf joke:

Jimmy Kimmel thinks Mahershala is a weird name? Jimmy Kimmel sounds like dog treats.

— Cari Nation (@cari_nation) February 27, 2017

Even though it can be seen as a victory that many movies by and about black people won awards on Sunday night, those movies have taken a long time to make and were already in the works last year during the #OscarsSoWhite controversy. Like the creator of the hashtag #OscarsSoWhite, April Reign, pointed out on social media, they didn’t win because of last year’s backlash but because they absolutely deserved it.

Viola, Mahershala, and the wins for Moonlight happened because they were DESERVED. Not because of #OscarsSoWhite. I want that very clear.

— April (@ReignOfApril) February 27, 2017

And the fact is that the Oscars are still pretty white. Dev Patel, a British actor of Indian heritage who starred in the movie “Lion” was nominated in the supporting actor category. But actors of other ethnicities, including Hispanic and Asian, were largely absent. And diversity of gender is still lacking as well–on Sunday, only one female screenwriter was nominated, and not a single female director. Hopefully things are moving in the right direction–but there’s still so much work to be done.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The 89th Academy Awards: Were They Still #OscarsSoWhite? appeared first on Law Street.

Some people read books to escape from the harsh truths of reality. And some people (or, apparently, a lot of people) read books to better discern the totalitarian threat of the current political environment, I guess?

Much has been said about George Orwell’s “1984” returning to the top of Amazon’s best sellers list, but another dystopian fiction novel has since joined it. This week, Margaret Atwood’s “The Handmaid’s Tale” hit Amazon’s best sellers list at number two, with “1984” dropping down to the third slot from the top spot it held after the #alternativefacts controversy late last month.

Considered as somewhat of a “feminist ‘1984,’” “The Handmaid’s Tale” is set in a dystopian future where a totalitarian state run by religious zealots, the Republic of Gilead, has replaced America. In Gilead, women are property, a large number of them are infertile, and they are placed in a caste system where their worth is determined by their ability to bear children, race, and class. As warfare rages on throughout the country, fertile women are put in camps and trained to be “Handmaids,” who are tasked with bearing the children of rich white men. Sounds like a fun and breezy read, no?

Like “1984,” which has been banned and challenged many times by school boards since its publication, “The Handmaid’s Tale” has been caught up in similar controversy. Most recently, in 2014, the book was banned by a school board in Pennsylvania because of the novel’s profanity and graphic sexual references. In 2012, according to the Winston-Salem Journal, two mothers in Guilford County, North Carolina attempted to ban the book from schools because of its extreme view of Christianity.

On NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Russell Perreault, head of publicity for Anchor Books, which now publishes “The Handmaid’s Tale,” said that sales of the book shot up 60 percent in the last year and, since the election, sales increased by 200 percent.

While some of the book’s success can be attributed to the impending April premiere of the Hulu show based on the novel (Hulu premiered the show’s second trailer during last Sunday’s Super Bowl), it’s not out of the question to consider the book’s renewed prominence could be connected to an increase in political anxiety.

This spike in sales for “The Handmaid’s Tale” is similar to the sales numbers posted by “1984.” According to CNNMoney, which spoke to a Penguin spokesman, Penguin reprinted 75,000 copies of “1984” the week after the inauguration–which is a significantly larger reprint than normal for the novel. This upsurge in sales for “1984” is similar to but larger than the spike that sales of the novel saw in the midst of the NSA surveillance scandal in 2013.

Following this gloom and doom of the future reading trend, Sinclair Lewis’ cautionary novel “It Can Happen Here” as well as Aldous Huxley’s even more cautionary novel “Brave New World” can be found further down the Amazon best sellers list. However, it should be noted that the children’s books “Llama Llama I Love You” and “Love from the Very Hungry Caterpillar” sit at fifth and sixth on the list, so do not despair, for children’s reading habits have not been affected…yet.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post “The Handmaid’s Tale” and “1984” Sit at Top of Amazon’s Best Sellers List appeared first on Law Street.

What many Super Bowl viewers noticed on Sunday was the subtle–and sometimes not so subtle–way that commercials during the game seemed to relate to Donald Trump in one way or another. Recently, his immigration ban has upset leading figures in America and abroad, and on Sunday, 97 U.S. tech companies filed a joint court brief opposing it.

In case you missed them, here are some of the most politically outspoken, and funny, ads from Super Bowl night:

Budweiser

Arguably the most famous American beer, Budweiser, originated from a collaboration between two German immigrants; Adolphus Busch and Eberhard Anheuser. The new Bud commercial tells a dramatized story of Busch arriving by boat to the United States where he is initially heckled and told to go home. He then meets Anheuser who buys him a beer, marking the start of a friendship that produced the first American lager. That Americans wouldn’t have their Bud on a hot summer day if it weren’t for a couple of immigrants, might come as a shock to some. While the ad may not be completely true to the original story, it does tell a compelling story of the important role that immigrants played in American beer industry.

Wow. @Budweiser‘s Super Bowl ad is just wow. pic.twitter.com/j3AMrKz565

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) February 4, 2017

Coca-Cola

Coca-Cola’s ad is a collection of voices singing “America The Beautiful” in different languages, showing faces from all over the world, and ending with the words, “together is beautiful.” Short and simple but very expressive.

Our diversity is our strength. America The Beautiful #SuperBowl #Coke pic.twitter.com/vhEBvJQ38d

— Keith Boykin (@keithboykin) February 6, 2017

It’s a 10 Haircare

The haircare product line offered a punch at Donald Trump’s famous hairdo with its ad’s opening line: “We’re in for at least four years of awful hair.” The ad went on showing all kinds of hair—old, young, facial, chest, dog hair, and much more.

Airbnb

Airbnb’s ad is a compilation of faces of different ethnicities accompanied by the text, “No matter who you are, where you’re from, who you love, or who you worship, we all belong.” It ends with the hashtag #weaccept. The company didn’t just make a subtle but fairly clear jab at President Trump; it also promised to provide 100,000 refugees with a place to stay and has a longtime goal to accommodate even more displaced people in the coming years.

Acceptance starts with all of us. #weaccept pic.twitter.com/btgqyYHVTK

— Airbnb (@Airbnb) February 6, 2017

84 Lumber

Probably the most obvious, and definitely the most tear-inducing, Super Bowl ad came from 84 Lumber, which showed a mother and daughter from a Latin-American country making the long and strenuous journey to the American border. The original ad is almost six minutes long, but Fox News banned the end from airing on TV, arguing that it was “too controversial.” The full-length ad shows the mother and daughter facing a wall, similar to the one Trump has talked about. The ad ends with the text, “The will to succeed is always welcome here.” The construction business relies heavily on workers from Mexico and other Latin-American countries, and an employee shortage will likely drive up construction prices.

Our complete Super Bowl story. See a mother & daughter’s symbolic journey toward becoming legal American citizens. https://t.co/AiI3MLrVd5

— 84 Lumber Company (@84LumberNews) February 6, 2017

Lady Gaga

Lady Gaga has been praised for her halftime show during which she was lowered down from the ceiling like Spiderman then proceeded to dance, play piano and keytar, and finally threw the microphone off the stage before jumping off herself. It didn’t seem like a particularly blatant political statement, but if you listen closer, it very well could have been. After starting off singing “America the Beautiful” she quickly switched to “This Land is Your Land,” a song that has also been popular among those protesting Trump’s immigration ban.

Gaga also performed her song “Born This Way,” which is about being who you are and contains the line, “No matter gay, straight, or bi, lesbian, transgendered life, I’m on the right track baby I was born to survive.” During the show, over 800 Texas high school students contributed to the magnificence by waving coordinated lights below the stage while singing the line “Why don’t you stay.” Maybe the show wasn’t a political statement, maybe it was just Gaga being inclusive and herself, but really, that too is a statement.

Lady Gaga hugs teen during halftime show: “It was an amazing surprise” https://t.co/dbzqE8wfHgpic.twitter.com/4YnZNzSnUs

— billboard (@billboard) February 6, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Intentional or Not, These Super Bowl Ads Became Political appeared first on Law Street.

Frank Ocean’s estranged father is suing him…again. According to a TMZ report, Ocean’s father, Calvin Cooksey, is filing a defamation lawsuit against his son. The $14.5 million lawsuit is a response to a Tumblr post that Ocean wrote after the Orlando nightclub shooting that had the “Blonde” singer, who infamously took to Tumblr to discuss his sexuality in 2012, recounting the time his dad used a homophobic slur. In the post that led to the defamation lawsuit, Ocean wrote:

I was six years old when I heard my dad call our transgender waitress a f****t as he dragged me out a neighborhood diner saying we wouldn’t be served because she was dirty. That was the last afternoon I saw my father and the first time I heard that word, I think, although it wouldn’t shock me if it wasn’t.

Cooksey, who considers himself to be somewhat of a multihyphenate, claims that the story never happened, and that it has caused damages to his aspiring career in film and music. This isn’t the first time Cooksey has filed a lawsuit–in fact, it’s not even the first time he’s filed a lawsuit against his son.

In 2012, Ocean took to his since-deleted Twitter account to reveal that his father was suing him for $1 million. “Father wanna sue me for a million. Like I owe him back child support. Weak individual bought me a swiss knife at 6yrs old then dipped on me,” Ocean tweeted.

In 2014, TMZ reported that Cooksey hit rap mogul Russell Simmons with a $142 million lawsuit, claiming that Simmons’ hip-hop culture website GlobalGrind unfairly painted him as horrible father. Like his current lawsuit, Cooksey sued Simmons for damages to his future income. In the lawsuit, according to TMZ, Cooksey claimed that Ocean’s “Money Grubbing mother” hid his own son from him and didn’t give Cooksey the chance to be a father. Ocean, who is notoriously private, maintains a close relationship with his mom. In October, Ocean brought her as his date to the final Obama White House state dinner.

This isn’t the first time a celebrity has been sued by their own father. Just last year, actor Christian Slater was involved in a $20 million lawsuit that his father, who is also an actor, filed against him for defamation of character. In the suit, as Entertainment Tonight reported, Slater’s father claimed that comments his son made in an interview claiming that he suffered from mental health issues “ruined his career in the stage, motion picture, and television industry.” The lawsuit was tossed out in July.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Frank Ocean’s Father Sues Him for Defamation appeared first on Law Street.

Given President Donald Trump’s Inauguration lineup, the first White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) dinner of his presidency may be a little less star-studded than in previous years. But comedian Samantha Bee is not going to miss her chance to “properly roast the president.”

The host of TBS’s late night talk show “Full Frontal With Samantha Bee” will bring her own event called “Not the White House Correspondent’s Dinner” to D.C. on April 29–the same night as the actual WHCA dinner.

The dinner is an annual event that brings together politicians, celebrities, and journalists that cover the White House. Traditionally, a famous comedian headlines the soiree and makes jokes at the expense of the president, after which the president performs his own comedy routine.

Nicknamed “nerd prom,” the dinner has also received criticism for creating too friendly of a relationship between reporters and the public figures they cover.

Bee told the New York Times that she and the staff of her show hatched the idea for their alternative event after wondering how the traditional dinner would play out differently under the new president.

“And then we thought, Why don’t we just do one, just to do it in the way that we would want it done if we were hosting it?” she said.

Trump’s attacks on the media and objections to being made fun of have led some journalists to question whether or not he would even attend the Correspondents’ Dinner.

At a recent press conference, he said that Buzzfeed was a “failing pile of garbage” and refused to take questions from CNN’s Jim Acosta, calling the network “fake news.” And last week, his top strategist Stephen Bannon told the New York Times that the media “should keep its mouth shut.”

The president has also been vocal on Twitter about actor Alec Baldwin’s impression of him on “Saturday Night Live,” calling it “unwatchable.”

At the 2011 dinner, Trump was notoriously unamused when President Barack Obama and comedian Seth Meyers mocked his vows to run for president and his role in the birther movement, which claimed that Obama was not a U.S. citizen.

Trump’s own attempts at stand-up have been met with tough crowds. During the election, he attended a New York charity dinner where each candidate was supposed to perform a lighthearted routine. But his jokes quickly devolved into a string of insults toward his opponent Hillary Clinton that was met with boos from the crowd.

Bee, who is currently in the process of booking other performers for her own event, said she thinks trying to plan this year’s Correspondent’s Dinner will be “very challenging” for the WHCA.

“Does 3 Doors Down do comedy? I don’t know, maybe they do,” she said, poking fun at one of the Inauguration weekend headliners.

She added that proceeds from her dinner will go to the Committee to Protect Journalists.

Though the former “Daily Show” correspondent is no stranger to mocking the president–she has even compiled a “thesaurus” that catalogues all of her anti-Trump insults–writing new jokes to top “screaming carrot demon” or “tangerine-tinted trashcan fire” will be no easy feat.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Samantha Bee to Host Anti-White House Correspondents’ Dinner appeared first on Law Street.

Aside from all the gifs and memes that resulted from Gen-X icon Winona Ryder’s facial expressions, the biggest story of last night’s Screen Actors Guild Awards was the many winners who used their acceptance speeches as a platform to rebuke President Trump’s executive order banning travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries.

The night opened on a political note when Ashton Kutcher, presenting the night’s first award, welcomed “everyone at home and everyone in airports that belong in my America. You are part of the fabric of who we are, and we love you and we welcome you.”

#sagawards pic.twitter.com/3BGDGa0FLC

— SAG Awards® (@SAGawards) January 30, 2017

The night continued with “Veep” star Julia Louis-Dreyfus, accepting the award for outstanding performance by a female actor in a comedy series. In her speech, she called Trump’s immigration ban “un-American” and told her story of being the daughter of an immigrant who fled religious persecution in Nazi-occupied France.

The political focus continued throughout the night. William H. Macy thanked Trump for making his “Shameless” character Frank Gallagher–a perpetually drunk and irresponsible man with a proclivity to go on extended rants–seem normal. “Orange is the New Black” actress Taylor Schilling called on Hollywood to “keep telling stories that show what unites us is stronger than the forces that seek to divide us.” “The People v. O.J. Simpson” star Sarah Paulson requested that everyone donate to the American Civil Liberties Union. And “Stranger Things” actor David Harbour pointed to art’s ability to “cultivate a more empathetic and understanding society.”

The most emotional and perhaps most resonant moment of the night came from Mahershala Ali, who accepted the award for best male actor in a supporting role for his performance in the movie “Moonlight.” “We see what happens when you persecute people. They fold into themselves,” Ali said.

He added:

When we kind of get caught up in the minutiae, the details that make us all different, there’s two ways of seeing that. There’s an opportunity to see the texture of that person, the characteristics that make them unique, and then there’s the opportunity to go to war about it, say, ‘that person is different from me and I don’t like you, so let’s battle.’ My mother is an ordained minister, I’m a Muslim. She didn’t do backflips when I called her to tell her I converted 17 years ago. But I tell you now, we put things to the side, I’m able to see her, she’s able to see me, we love each other, the love has grown. That stuff is minutiae. It’s not that important.

Politics taking a prominent place during awards season has a rich history–one that includes Marlon Brando refusing to accept his Academy Award for “The Godfather” to protest the film industry’s treatment of Native Americans and Michael Moore using his Oscar speech to shame President George W. Bush. If last night was any indication, President Trump is in for a bruising couple of weeks.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post The Screen Actors Guild Awards Get Political appeared first on Law Street.

A documentary about the lawsuit that pitted celebrity wrestler Hulk Hogan–whose actual name is Terry Bollea–against news and gossip site Gawker is coming to Netflix.

“Nobody Speak: Hulk Hogan, Gawker, and Trials of a Free Press,” which premiered at the 2017 Sundance Film Festival, explores the case that awarded Bollea over $140 million in damages, drove Gawker’s founder Nick Denton to file for bankruptcy, and resulted in the site shutting down.

Bollea first filed a defamation suit against Gawker in Florida state court in 2012, after an editor at the site posted a segment of a sex tape Bollea had made with his best friend’s then-wife. Although Bollea had already spoken publicly about the tape and stills from it had been published elsewhere, he testified that Gawker violated his privacy by releasing the video footage. In his testimony, he tried to distinguish between his roles as a private figure and as a public persona.

In March, a jury granted Bollea $115 million in compensatory damages and $25 million in punitive damages. Gawker filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied in May. Gawker Media subsequently filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in June, closed Gawker.com in August, and sold its six sister sites to Univision.

It was revealed in May that Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiel, the cofounder of Paypal, had secretly been helping Bollea fund his lawsuit. Thiel had previously condemned Gawker; the site outed him as gay in 2007.

Meanwhile, the case sparked a handful of journalists to speak out against allowing wealthy or powerful individuals to intimidate or cause the decline of publications–particularly when President Donald Trump has said he wants to change libel laws to make suing news organizations easier.

According to Business Insider, the film highlights the threat that billionaires like Thiel pose to the freedom of the press. Director Brian Knappenberger told the news site: “This notion of [Thiel’s] nine-year grudge and this epic tale of revenge was so spectacular.”

Denton and A.J. Daulerio, the former Gawker editor who posted the sex tape clip, as well as Bollea’s lawyer will appear in the film, although Bollea declined to appear.

Bollea v. Gawker, which consistently made headlines since the case began, is sure to make for a fascinating movie.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hulk Hogan v. Gawker: Coming Soon to a Computer Screen Near You appeared first on Law Street.

Hours before Donald Trump took the oath of office to become the 45th President of the United States, Shia LaBeouf launched his newest livestream art project, “He Will Not Divide Us.”

“He Will Not Divide Us,” is a four-year-long 24/7 livestream project created by LaBeouf and his frequent collaborators Nastja Säde Rönkkö and Luke Turner that invites the public to say the words “He will not divide us” as much as they wish in front of a camera mounted on a wall outside New York’s Museum of the Moving Image. The official website states that the project is meant “as a show of resistance or insistence, opposition or optimism, guided by the spirit of each individual participant and the community.”

6 Hours Later #HeWillNotDivideUspic.twitter.com/Ld2pZoRpUZ

— Jaden Smith (@officialjaden) January 21, 2017

update: it is jaden smith outside of the museum of moving image screaming”he will not divide us” pic.twitter.com/825sdVQa3u

— babadook canterbury (@I0vingsomeone) January 20, 2017

Since its launch, “He Will Not Divide Us” has seen a flurry of participants, including a white supremacist who exclaimed “We must secure the existence of white people as a race.” LaBeouf quickly shut him down, shouting the project’s mantra in his ear directly in front of the camera.

Mr. LaBeouf shouting down a white supremacist earlier. This thing has been a fascinating watch so far. #HeWillNotDivideUs pic.twitter.com/i0J6oq3BLt

— murta (@murtaman) January 22, 2017

Aside from the protester, the project has introduced people like Leo, a man who stood in front of the camera for over three hours on Sunday night and endured a mini-Trump rally and white supremacists because “at this time, we need compassion and unity to be what we’re focusing on.” Leo was joined by Alexi and Richie, two people who he had never met before, who stood in solidarity with Leo, inspired by his dedication.

this is so beautiful #hewillnotdivideus pic.twitter.com/1SDkOGCJjz

— ella (@frickingtroye) January 23, 2017

THIS MAN HAS MOVED A NATION TONIGHT #hewillnotdivideus pic.twitter.com/EbioOQ5pOw

— l a u r e n (@laurenouterson) January 23, 2017

Richie walked with alexi so she can be safe #hewillnotdivideus pic.twitter.com/cfKN6O47SN

— leslie (@vscoyoyo) January 23, 2017

You can watch the livestream at http://www.hewillnotdivide.us.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Shia LaBeouf Launches Four-Year-Long Anti-Trump Project appeared first on Law Street.

The robbery of Kim Kardashian in Paris in October is one step closer to being resolved after police arrested 17 suspects in the beginning of the week following a close review of security footage. On Thursday, four of them were charged. Investigators believe the robbery to be an inside job. Most of the suspects, three of whom are women, are professional criminals who have previously committed armed robbery or drug and counterfeit trafficking. A 40-year-old limousine driver from a company the Kardashians frequently use when visiting Paris was arrested, but he was subsequently released. However, his younger brother remains in custody, and police believe he is the one who told the experienced robbers about Kardashian’s whereabouts.

One of the four people charged on Thursday was a 63-year-old man referred to by the name “Yunice A.,” who was charged with armed robbery in an organized gang, kidnapping, and criminal association. He will stay in custody for the time being. Available information about the other suspects include that one 62-year-old and one 27-year-old are facing the same charges as Yunice A. A 44-year-old is charged with concealment/fencing by an organized gang and association with criminals. Six more suspects are still being questioned.

Reportedly, police were able to identify some DNA from the tape used to tie Kardashian, and also from a piece of jewelry that one of the thieves dropped in the street as they fled on rented bicycles. The DNA combined with the surveillance footage led to the arrest of the thieves.

Charges have been filed against 4 suspects involved in the Kim Kardashian Paris robbery. https://t.co/JxKuN9QUou pic.twitter.com/a228pTmPiR

— Complex (@Complex) January 13, 2017

According to the Daily Mail, French authorities won’t let an eyewitness who could testify against the robbers into France. An Algerian concierge at the place where Kardashian was staying, known as Abdulrahman, saw the robbers’ faces. After the robbery, he left France to go home and recover from the stress of being held at gunpoint. Now, the French government won’t issue a visa to let him back in and testify, even though he previously was a legal resident in France. His lawyer Henri de Beauregard said:

I don’t know if this is incompetence or just a bad decision. He is the best witness, he saw the criminals much longer than Miss Kardashian. I hope the police have a lot of solid proof and evidence, because if they don’t, it will be seen as a crazy decision.

The robbery happened when Kardashian was in Paris to attend Fashion Week in the beginning of October. Five men disguised as police officers entered the mansion she was staying in, had the concierge take them to Kardashian’s room and stole jewelry worth $10 million after holding her at gunpoint and tying her up in the bathroom. Among the stolen items was her 20-carat engagement ring, worth $4 million.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Four Charged in Kim Kardashian Paris Robbery Case appeared first on Law Street.

Following the sexual harassment scandal that resulted in Roger Ailes’ resignation from Fox News, the network reportedly secretly made a deal with TV personality Juliet Huddy about very similar accusations against its top host Bill O’Reilly. A letter obtained by the New York Times shows that Huddy had complained to Fox News that O’Reilly had persistently pursued a sexual relationship with her in 2011, which she rejected. At the time he had a lot of power over her career and when she kept rejecting him, he tried to sabotage it.

According to the letter, which was sent from Huddy’s lawyers to Fox News, O’Reilly repeatedly called her, invited her to his home, took her out for dinners, tried to kiss her, and once opened the door only wearing underwear. Fox News solved the situation by paying Huddy a six-figure sum in exchange for her silence. But the company also denied that the allegations were true.

Scoop here. Fox News settled sexual harassment allegations against Bill O’Reilly @nytmike https://t.co/Ih9szETS1n pic.twitter.com/orNudBbPbc

— Michael Tackett (@tackettdc) January 10, 2017

Huddy also accused long-time Fox executive Jack Abernethy of similar behavior, and said that he too had punished her professionally when she turned down his advances. But Fox News sided with O’Reilly and Abernethy. “The letter contains substantial falsehoods, which both men have vehemently denied,” said spokeswoman Irena Briganti on Monday. New York Magazine’s Gabriel Sherman tweeted that the network has settled sexual harassment complaints with at least four more women in the past few months.

According to two Fox sources, Fox News has secretly settled sexual harassment complaints with at least 4 women since Ailes left

— Gabriel Sherman (@gabrielsherman) January 10, 2017

Fox News apparently first learned about Huddy’s allegations in August, when her lawyers sent the letter. They agreed to the settlement on September 5, right around the time when they were dealing with Gretchen Carlson’s allegations against Roger Ailes. O’Reilly defended Ailes and called him the “best boss I’ve ever had.” He also claimed that Ailes was the victim, and was being targeted by the women because he was famous. He said: “In this country, every famous, powerful or wealthy person is a target. You’re a target, I’m a target. Anytime, somebody could come out and sue us, attack us, go to the press or anything like that.”

However, Ailes resigned, and Bill O’Reilly stayed on air and has since published two more books. To complicate things further, Roger Ailes is Huddy’s godfather and a good friend of her father, who also used to work at Fox. Her brother is also with the network.

This wasn’t the first time O’Reilly was the subject of sexual harassment accusations. In 2004, producer Andrea Mackris sued him for basically the same kind of behavior that Huddy claimed. He was also involved in a domestic dispute in 2015, when his teenage daughter testified in court that she had seen him choke her mother while he “dragged her down some stairs.”

Bill O’Reilly in November about Megyn Kelly: “You don’t like what’s happening in the workplace, go to human resources or leave.” https://t.co/EnKNJZNlP6

— (((Gabe Rosenberg))) (@GabrielJR) January 10, 2017

Huddy used to have segments on O’Reilly’s show. The letter from her lawyers describes how when she rejected O’Reilly, he started nitpicking her work, berating her, stopped preparing her before going on air, and cancelled a segment that she used to have on his show. Afraid of further retaliation, she didn’t complain. In September, she left the network. A source who Lawnewz talked to does not believe her claims and said that they were just concocted to get money from the network. Huddy has never publicly spoken about her allegations. But considering her close family ties to Ailes and that the settlement came at a time when Fox News was being hit hard in the media, that is likely explained by a confidentiality agreement, or simple loyalty.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fox News Secretly Settled Sexual Harassment Allegations Against Bill O’Reilly appeared first on Law Street.

Megyn Kelly has announced a move from Fox News, her home for over a decade, to NBC, where it is rumored she will join the morning talk shows. Her Fox program, “The Kelly File,” was ranked consistently as one of the most popular cable news programs, with over 2.7 million viewers last year. Sources have stated that NBC is giving Kelly a daytime show that will fill the slot currently running the third hour of the “Today” show, as well as an anchor spot on a Sunday night news program. Kelly’s departure leaves a seat open in a critical late-night time slot, and there is already a flurry of speculation over who will replace her. There are also questions about whether her move will inspire Bill O’Reilly, Fox’s most profitable anchor, to jump ship when his contract ends later this year. Fox currently has no female host in prime time, which bodes ill for a network still reeling from a massive sexual harassment lawsuit.

Kelly has stated her decision to leave Fox is focused around the work-life balance available at NBC. Yet it is impossible to ignore her clash with Donald Trump in the wake of his incendiary comments about her after the Republican primary and the environment created by Roger Ailes, who Kelly called out for sexual harassment. In the wake of Trump’s inflammatory comments questioning her journalistic integrity, Kelly became symbolic of a righteous crusade against Trump. She was profiled in numerous magazines, gained more attention for her show and became a symbol of strength in the face of sexism.

However, the positive press that Kelly received after the debate can be largely categorized as beneficial to her personal brand rather than beneficial to women in journalism as a whole. In the rush to lift her up to icon status, the public seemed to forget the often blatantly racist tone of “The Kelly File” and the fact that, until the Republican primary, she produced the same rhetoric that the rest of the Fox News team does. Kelly was a frequent target of “The Daily Show” under Jon Stewart’s reign and was lambasted for holding shouting matches rather than interviews on her show.

So which version of Megyn Kelly did NBC sign up for: the pundit who railed against the “War on Christmas,” and defended racist emails in the Ferguson police department, or the heroine who was, according to some, the only Republican woman to stand up to Trump? Unfortunately, Kelly’s inflammatory statements from her Fox years will probably come with her to NBC–after all, Kelly claiming that Michelle Obama promotes a culture of victimization will get more clicks and comments than a clip of her calmly reporting the news or interviewing an actor on a press tour for their latest film. Kelly may have moved to a new network and a new time slot, but her star power is wrapped up in the persona she built at Fox News–and that persona demands drama.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post What Should We Expect from Megyn Kelly at NBC? appeared first on Law Street.

With great fame comes great…er chances of being sued. Nobody knows this fact better than celebrities, and 2016 was no different. This past year we saw some of our most beloved stars entangled in celebrity court battles ranging from the bizarre to the just plain wrong. For the sake of nostalgia, here are our picks for the top celebrity legal battles of 2016!

10. Lindsey Lohan Loses to Grand Theft Auto

Lindsey Lohan suing @RockstarGames over Grand Theft Auto 5 character pic.twitter.com/5TPQpDnVRL

— RushLimpCall (@rushlimpcall) October 11, 2014

Actress Lindsey Lohan was convinced Grand Theft Auto V illegally used her likeness when creating its infamous red bikini girl, Lacey Jonas. As a result, she sued the game’s makers back in 2014, but it wasn’t until 2016 that her case was eventually dismissed. The overall judgement concluded:

[They are depictions] not of Lohan herself, but merely the avatar in the game that Lohan claims is a depiction of her.

Even if we accept plaintiffs’ contentions that the video game depictions are close enough to be considered representations of the respective plaintiffs, plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed because this video game does not fall under the statutory definitions of ‘advertising’ or ‘trade’.

Better luck next time LiLo.

Read: Lindsay Lohan’s Lawsuit Against “Grand Theft Auto V” Will Proceed

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Celebrity Legal Battles of 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Bristol Palin is not happy with all of the artists who are refusing to perform at President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration in a few weeks. In a blog post, Palin, whose mother ran alongside John McCain in 2008, called the Hollywood A-listers “sissies.” But she was sure to acknowledge that the ceremony is not about brandishing Hollywood talent, but is about “We the People instead.”

“Trump’s inauguration team sought out some of the world’s greatest musicians, but nearly all of them have refused for fear of backlash or to stand against him politically,” Palin said. “Isn’t it amazing how ‘not cool’ it is to be conservative in the public eye? Either Hollywood is that far off — or we have so many sissies we have in the spot light too scared to stand for what they believe in!”

Elton John, Celine Dion, Justin Timberlake, and Katy Perry are among the performers who have refused to take part on Inauguration Day. As of today, Trump’s performance line-up looks like this: the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, Jackie Evancho, a former contestant on “America’s Got Talent,” and The Rockettes, a New York dance group with some members who might boycott the ceremony.

Last week, Trump tweeted his allegiance with “the people,” lambasting the celebrities that did “nothing” for his opponent Hillary Clinton:

The so-called “A” list celebrities are all wanting tixs to the inauguration, but look what they did for Hillary, NOTHING. I want the PEOPLE!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 23, 2016

In the days leading up to Election Day, Clinton courted a number of celebrities to perform at her rallies. But endorsements from people who have sold millions of records, and who have millions of dollars in the bank were not enough to eek out a victory for Clinton. Trump, Palin wrote in the blog post, would “rather cozy up with We the People instead” of Hollywood’s finest.

Aretha Franklin and a host of classical musicians performed at President Barack Obama’s first inauguration in 2008; James Taylor and Beyonce performed at Obama’s 2012 swearing in ceremony. But who needs musical legends when you’ve got a 16-year-old reality show contestant? Palin thinks that Evancho’s decision to perform The Star Spangled Banner is “her best decision yet.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bristol Palin Says Artists Who Won’t Perform at the Inauguration Are “Sissies” appeared first on Law Street.

CBS is being sued for defamation after a TV special on JonBenét Ramsey argued that her brother, Burke Ramsey, was responsible for her death.

Burke has requested $750 million from the network in his lawsuit, in response to the airing of the TV special “The Case Of: JonBenét Ramsey,” which investigated the murder of six-year-old child beauty pageant star JonBenét on the 20-year anniversary of her death. The case remains an unsolved mystery, but the CBS special that aired in September attempted to cash in on the current popularity of “true crime” entertainment by using experts such as detectives and forensic pathologists to theorize on possible causes and culprits. It was accused by some critics of being “exploitative” and a re-hashing of old material.

The program included an “experiment” conducted to support the theory that Burke could have committed the murder at age nine. The lawsuit accused the show of conducting a “sham investigation,” according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

While DNA testing conducted by the then-district attorney exonerated the Ramsey family in 2008, the current district attorney has allegedly re-ordered DNA tests and claimed that the exoneration was premature. While Burke was largely kept out of the public eye following the death of his sister, he gave an interview to Dr. Phil earlier this year where he continued to deny any involvement in the murder.

In October, Burke filed a lawsuit for $150 million against Dr. Werner Spitz, the forensic pathologist who appeared in the program, for comments he had made saying he was “sure” that it was Burke who committed the crime. Spitz responded earlier this month, saying that the comments were simply “speculation” and that he expressed his opinion under his First Amendment rights.

While it is unclear if we will ever find out the truth of what happened to JonBenét, the CBS special, as well as Burke’s emergence into the public eye, have reinvigorated interest into one of the most infamous unsolved murder mysteries of this era.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post The Brother of JonBenét Ramsey Files Defamation Lawsuit Against CBS appeared first on Law Street.

You can expect to see some synchronized high kicks in Washington D.C. come January 20. The Radio City Rockettes are forced scheduled to perform at President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration, despite one dancer voicing concerns about being “involved in a dangerous political climate.”

An administrator for the American Guild of Variety Artists wrote in an email to the Rockettes:

We have received an email from a Rockette expressing concern about getting ‘involved in a dangerous political climate’ but I must remind you that you are all employees, and as a company, Mr. Dolan obviously wants the Rockettes to be represented at our country’s Presidential inauguration, as they were in 2001 & 2005. Any talk of boycotting this event is invalid, I’m afraid.

Originally, the union representing the precision dancing troupe told full-time dancers that they were “obligated” to perform at the inauguration, according to the email obtained from Broadway World. Part-time dancers had the option.

The initial email read:

This has nothing to do with anyone’s political leanings (including AGVA’s), it has to do with your best performance for your employer, period. I will reiterate that if Hillary Clinton was the President-elect, nothing would be different, and there would probably be those who would not want to be involved because of her. It is a job, and all of you should consider it an honor, no matter who is being sworn in. The election is over and this country will not survive if it remains divided.

Everyone is entitled to her own political beliefs, but there is no room for this in the workplace.

However, it appears that the Madison Square Garden Company, which produces the Rockettes’ shows, clarified in a statement released late this morning that “it is always their choice” whether or not to perform, including the inaugural.

.@MSG says “it is always their choice” in new statement on #Rockettes performing at Trump inauguration https://t.co/6CjiuSCFAG pic.twitter.com/gbDIrROqbW

— Jackie Strause (@jackiedstrause) December 23, 2016

The change of heart was likely motivated by online outrage encouraging dancers to boycott the performance,  as well as the outspokenness of some dancers on social media.

Rockette Phoebe Pearl expressed her contempt for the incoming president in a now-deleted Instagram post of herself performing underneath a hand-drawn speech bubble that read: “Not my president.”

The photo was captioned:

I usually don’t use social media to make a political stand but I feel overwhelmed with emotion. Finding out that it has been decided for us that Rockettes will be performing at the Presidential inauguration makes me feel embarrassed and disappointed. The women I work with are intelligent and are full of love and the decision of performing for a man that stands for everything we’re against is appalling. I am speaking for just myself but please know that after we found out this news, we have been performing with tears in our eyes and heavy hearts #notmypresident

Ani Maeme also tweeted out a scathing open letter from an unknown former Rockette, that contained contact information for the show’s producers.

@jenstatsky More details from former Rockette and contact info for Producers ↓ #Inauguration2017#January20th#SwampMonster#Rockettes pic.twitter.com/G05ydQmsr5

— Animaeme (@animaeme) December 23, 2016

The former Rockette wrote:

The Rockettes are not just leggy, happy showgirls. They are dedicated, highly-trained, ridiculously hardworking WOMEN. I love what they stand for. And for them to be paraded in front of a man who has demonstrated a complete lack of respect for women (and has been accused of even worse), flies in the face of everything the women of The Rockettes actually are.

President-elect Trump hasn’t had the easiest  time securing A-list performers for his impending inauguration. According to Vulture, Elton John, Céline Dion, Andrea Bocelli, Kiss, and others have all turned down invitations to sing. Aside from the Rockettes, confirmed performers include the Mormon Tabernacle Choir and 16-year-old singer Jackie Evancho, who was the runner-up on 2010’s “America’s Got Talent” competition.

Sounds like this is shaping up to be one snooze-worthy show.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rockettes No Longer “Obligated” to Perform at Trump’s Inauguration appeared first on Law Street.

Despite Donald Trump’s comments about Saturday Night Live, its writers are still going after the President-elect…hard. In last night’s cold open, Alec Baldwin reprised his fantastic Trump impression, and was visited by Beck Bennett as Vladimir Putin and John Goodman as Rex Tillerson. The SNL skit was incredibly entertaining, but certainly not subtle:

One highlight from the sketch was Putin’s gift of an “elf on a shelf” to Trump–telling him he should keep it out year-round and put it right next to his internet router. Putin and Tillerson also called each other the pet names “Pootie” and “Rexy,” showed off a secret handshake, and talked about oil while Trump asked if they could take out Vanity Fair. The message was clear: SNL was attacking Trump for his relationship with Russia.

And of course, the writers were just making fun of Trump generally. For example, they referenced Trump’s new word “unpresidented” which he has received plenty of flak for tweeting, given that it’s not an actual word.

It took Trump and his team 87 minutes to fix the word “unpresidented.” pic.twitter.com/Bz7NxSqwlo

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) December 17, 2016

Trump hasn’t tweeted about the show yet, but that doesn’t mean he won’t. Most of the previous SNL sketches featuring Baldwin’s impression have drawn Trump’s wrath.

SNL hasn’t forgotten about Hillary Clinton either. Kate McKinnon once again reprised her role as Clinton, to star in a timely “Love Actually” sketch that also took some jabs at Trump.

Clinton shows up at an elector’s door to ask her to vote for anyone else on December 19, presenting a very, very long list of reasons why Trump should not be president.

Regardless of Trump’s feelings about the comedy show, it seems likely that SNL will continue to have some good fodder for sketches for the next four years.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SNL Still Isn’t Pulling Any Punches When it Comes to Donald Trump appeared first on Law Street.

This week, President Barack Obama signed the appropriately and ironically named Better Online Ticket Sales (BOTS) act, which made it through the House and Senate last week. This bill will outlaw the use of those pesky ticket bots that buy up tickets on sites like StubHub and Ticketmaster, deployed by people who want to resell the tickets later at a higher price.

Laws against bots do exist in certain parts of the United States–for example, both California and New York have passed versions, but this law will forbid them nationwide. This law will make it illegal to use that kind of ticket-buying software, or to resell tickets with the knowledge that they were obtained using a bot.

This is a win for many in the entertainment industry, as there have long been many complaints about ticket bots. The presence of bots on ticket selling sites push prices up for fans, pricing many out. That’s what happened with tickets to Adele, Beyonce, and Bruce Springsteen shows in 2016. Multiple celebrities have also spoken out against ticket bots, including Chance the Rapper and Lin Manuel Miranda.

Early in 2016, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s office released a report about the abusive practices of ticket bots. NPR notes:

In one case, a single vendor was able to buy 1,012 tickets to a U2 concert at Madison Square Garden just one minute after they went on sale, even though the venue supposedly limited sales to four tickets per customer.

And at least some of those sale sites are happy about the passage of the bill as well. A statement from Ticketmaster  read:

On behalf of artists, venues, teams, and especially fans, Ticketmaster is pleased that the BOTS Act is now a federal law. Ticketmaster worked closely with legislators to develop the BOTS Act and we believe its passage is a critical step in raising awareness and regulating the unauthorized use of Bots.

So, next time you’re trying to get tickets to your favorite show, never fear, the ticket bots will be gone.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama Signs Law that Bans Those Annoying Online Ticket Bots appeared first on Law Street.

President Obama’s time in the White House is coming to an end, but he’s staying busy. He has made an effort to get as much done as possible before leaving; such as announcing the biggest protected marine monument in the world, signing the Sexual Assault Survivors’ Bill of Rights, and commuting the sentences of 944 inmates. Now, John Legend has another suggestion.

The Grammy Award winning musician wrote an open letter to Obama, published in Rolling Stone, asking him to pardon federal inmates who are jailed for non-violent drug offenses before January. In the letter, Legend praises the Obama administration for doing so much to end juvenile solitary confinement and to reduce the use of private prisons. As it is unclear what will happen when Donald Trump takes office, he urged the president to “bring justice to the thousands of families of non-violent drug offenders who have waited far too long for Congress to act.” He wrote:

In 2014, you set out to reinvigorate our country’s approach to clemency. Your actions to commute the sentences of 944 individuals, including 324 life sentences, is unprecedented in the modern era. Nonetheless, more action is needed to dismantle the unjust policies of the past 40 years.

He also said that approximately 36,000 non-violent drug offenders currently behind bars have asked Obama for pardon under his clemency initiative, and it’s unclear how many will be reviewed in time. That’s why he is suggesting categorical commutations, to end the injustices.

I wrote a letter to the President: https://t.co/gIIFVSp8CA

— John Legend (@johnlegend) December 9, 2016

Legend points out that drug addiction is not a moral failing, but a chronic health issue. There is also a big discrepancy in how slight variations in drugs are treated differently before the law. Crimes involving crack cocaine, which is more commonly used by black users and sold on the streets, are punished more severely than those involving powder cocaine, which is more expensive and more likely to be used by white people.

And for Legend, it’s also a personal issue. His mother struggled with depression and drug abuse, and ended up in prison when he was a teenager. Earlier this year he started the initiative Free America, with Assistant District Attorney Adam Foss of Suffolk County, Massachusetts, in an effort to change criminal justice policies and keep teens out of prison. He told the Guardian in July:

You begin to realize how much trauma and pain and abuse [the inmates] have been victims of themselves before they got to prison, and since they’ve been in prison. And you realize that it’s just a cycle that keeps repeating,

Hopefully, Legend’s efforts will not be for nothing when the next administration takes office.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post John Legend Urges Obama to Pardon Non-Violent Offenders appeared first on Law Street.

A lawsuit against their future sister-in-law is the cherry on top of an eventful few months for the Kardashians.

Khloe, Kourtney, and Kim have filed legal documents to prevent Blac Chyna (whose actual name is Angela Renée White) from being able to trademark the Kardashian name for her own personal brand. In case you haven’t been “keeping up,” Chyna is the fiancée of Rob Kardashian, and she took legal action back in May to secure her future family’s name for business purposes.

The legal action taken by the Kardashian family cites that the sisters “will suffer damage including irreparable injury to their reputation and goodwill if the Opposed Mark is allowed to register.”

The relationship between Chyna and the Kardashians has been a tumultuous one, but they seemed to be on good terms recently. However, after being accused of “deliberately seeking to profit from the goodwill and popularity” of the Kardashian name, family relations are sure to get a little awkward.

TMZ reports that the sisters assured Chyna the filings were not meant to single her out and were just “standard” procedures taken by their lawyers.

The Kardashian name itself is an important part of the various businesses owned by the family, which include products such as clothing, fragrance, makeup and home goods, among others. Additionally, the money they make off of self-promotion in the form of personal appearances and social media depend a lot upon the value of the Kardashian name.

Kris Jenner herself considered changing her name back to Kardashian in the past, and cited business purposes for doing so.

Chyna’s lawyer told People that his expectations are that it will be a “clear case win, because it’s actually her name, it’s not a poaching.”

Regardless of the intentions, it should be interesting to see how this all plays out as the family prepares to welcome Chyna into the family.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post The Kardashians Try to Prevent Blac Chyna from Legally Using Their Name  appeared first on Law Street.

The wife of Vladimir Putin’s chief spokesman Dmitry Peskov faces criticism from around the world after performing a Holocaust-themed ice skating routine on the Russian reality show “Ice Age.”

Former Olympic figure skating champion Tatiana Navka and her partner Andrey Burkovskiy donned Holocaust-era prisoner uniforms that were each fitted with a yellow Star of David for the performance.  The pair skated to Israeli singer Achinoam “Noa” Nini’s song “Beautiful That Way,” which was featured in the 1997 Oscar-winning Italian film, “Life is Beautiful.”

The film tells the story of a father who employs his fertile imagination to shield his son from the horrors of internment in a Nazi concentration camp. Navka posted a collage to Instagram highlighting moments from the performance after the show aired.  She explained that the routine was “based on one of my favorite movies” and noted the importance of Holocaust education for children.

Посмотрите обязательно! Один из моих любимых номеров!По мотивам одного из моих любимых фильмов ” Жизнь прекрасна”! Покажите этот фильм своим детям, обязательно☝️ #ледниковыйпериод @tatiana_navka @aburkovskiy PS : Наши дети должны знать и помнить о том страшном времени, которого надеюсь-даст Бог, они никогда не узнают!

A photo posted by Tatiana Navka (@tatiana_navka) on Nov 26, 2016 at 11:22am PST

The routine ended on a gruesome note as Navka stands alone grieving, while Burkovskiy is heard being shot behind her.

The Russian celebrity ice-skating show works similarly to the United States program “Dancing with the Stars” or the UK’s “Dancing on Ice.” The routine seemed to be well-received by audience members, but international backlash followed shortly after the routine aired.

Director of International Affairs at Australia’s Israel and Jewish Affairs Council, Jeremy Jones, told CNN that he found the act to have been “unbelievably tasteless.”

“The lack of thought that would have to go into making that decision is almost mindblowing,” said Jones. “Long after they’re forgotten as ice skaters they’ll be remember as people who sunk to such depths to get some celebrity.”

The segment also drew considerable amounts of criticism online as Twitter exploded with negative reactions to the performance.

This might be offensive if they hadn’t take such great care to recreate all the wonderful ice dancing going on at Aushwitz at the time. https://t.co/Nz0iDHqili

— Michael Ian Black (@michaelianblack) November 27, 2016

Producer: Let’s play word association to find a theme for your routine. I’ll start: Ice skating.
Navka: Holocaust
Producer: …Genius

— Lara L-S (@larasouthwell) November 27, 2016

Jones told CNN that he hoped the backlash to the routine would serve as a reminder to the world of the Holocaust’s horrors.

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Russian Figure Skater Sparks Outrage With Holocaust-Themed Routine appeared first on Law Street.

Actress Amber Heard was barely out of the headlines after a divorce and abuse allegations against Johnny Depp before she ended up back in the spotlight this week. Now, the producers of the film “London Fields” are suing her for conspiring to undermine the movie and breaching her obligations.

The movie was scheduled to premiere at the Toronto Film Festival last year but got stuck in a legal dispute between the producers and the director. And now, more than a year later, Amber Heard is next in line to go to court. The ongoing drama could have been part of the movie itself. In the film, Heard plays a clairvoyant femme fatale who has seen her own murder but doesn’t know who will kill her. Billy Bob Thornton, Jim Sturgess, and Amber’s then-husband Johnny Depp also have parts in the movie.

The real life drama started when the director and the actors spoke out against  the film’s final edit, which according to them was far from the director’s original vision. Director Matthew Cullen was so upset that he sued producer Chris Hanley, who apparently saw the movie going in a different direction. And for some reason, both versions were prepared independently, as the actors were asked to read lines for two different variations. After the original lawsuit, the film’s premiere at the Toronto Festival was canceled. Then the production company sued back, saying that Cullen and the main actors were trying to sabotage and undermine the film.

London Fields producers suing Amber Heard for $10million.. #amberheard #londonfields https://t.co/XomvRWlQkS

— Flickreel (@Flickreel) November 21, 2016

The complaint against Heard, filed on Monday, says that she refused to shoot certain scenes though they were in the script, refused to show up at the film festival, and conspired with Cullen, the director. Hanley is seeking $10 million in compensatory damages. The scenes mentioned in the complaint involve nudity, which according to the production company, Heard had agreed to beforehand. The complaint reads:

While the inherent tension between actors and directors (on the one hand) and producers (on the other) is nothing new in Hollywood, the unauthorized and unlawful acts of Heard, Cullen, and others–most notably, their campaign to damage Plaintiff, the Picture, and the Picture’s investors–are perhaps unprecedented. Indeed, as a result of their misconduct, which continues to this day, the very promising Picture remains in limbo, hijacked and placed under a cloud by Heard, Cullen, and others.

On the other hand, the director has said that the producers hijacked the movie, adding “incendiary imagery evoking 9/11 jumpers edited against pornography” to the final edit.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Amber Heard Sued for $10 Million for Undermining ‘London Fields’ appeared first on Law Street.

During a concert Thursday night in San Jose, California, Kanye West stunned fans by announcing he didn’t vote in the presidential election, but if he had, he would have voted for Donald Trump.

“I told you all I didn’t vote right? … But if I were to have voted, I would have voted on Trump,” West said.

“I would’ve voted for Trump” – @kanyewest pic.twitter.com/XtyUteCgUZ

— albertoreyes (@albertoreyes) November 18, 2016

Fans immediately began booing West, and some even began to throw things at him from the crowd.

His announcement came as a huge shock to many, especially since:

1. In 2005, he famously called out then-President George W. Bush after Hurricane Katrina, saying Bush didn’t “care about black people.”
2. His wife, Kim Kardashian West, endorsed Hillary Clinton by posting a selfie with the Democratic hopeful (which included Kanye).
3. As Pitchfork points out, he’s made four contributions to Democratic campaigns since 2012. Not only did he donate to both of Obama’s campaigns, but he also gave $15,000 to the DNC in October 2014 and $2,700 to Hillary for America in July 2015.

However, the two men do have a few things in common. They’re both rich, have huge egos, and are outspoken to a fault.

Here’s an extended clip of his rant.

West defended his viewpoint to the audience, stating:

That don’t mean that I don’t think that Black Lives Matter. That don’t mean that I don’t think that I’m a believer in women’s rights. That don’t mean I don’t believe in gay marriage. That don’t mean that I don’t believe in these things because that was the guy I would’ve voted for.

He also reportedly told the crowd that “neither candidate would fix racism in this country, and that black people need to stop focusing on racism because we live in a racist country.”

People on Twitter immediately began disowning West, frequently mocking him with lyrics modeled after his own song “I Love Kanye.”

I miss the old kanye
The black and bold kanye
The smokin kush kanye
The anti bush kanye
Not donald trump Kanye

— Jon the Don (@big_jon4) November 18, 2016

I miss the old Kanye
The socially woke Kanye
Called Bush a joke Kanye
He used his vote Kanye

— JAY ₆ (@VIEWSFROMJAY) November 18, 2016

Is this a joke kanye
U actin broke kanye
U blowin smoke kanye
I miss the old kanye https://t.co/CKiYttEYBs

— lauren fuentes (@laurenschroed) November 18, 2016

I miss the old Kanye
The black & bold dope Kanye
The anti Bush Woke Kanye
Not Donald Trumps Kanye pic.twitter.com/d8RkGj1oap

— E (@esheikh_) November 18, 2016

“Bush doesn’t care about black people” – Kanye

“There’s racism in the fashion industry” – Kanye

“Stop talking about racism” – Kanye

— Jigga Jeaux (@JoeOnDemand) November 18, 2016

Blu: Daddy, how come people keep saying bad things about Uncle Kanye?
Jay: That’s not your uncle babygirl pic.twitter.com/emCyK4wRF0

— BABY HAIR & AFROS✊ (@NiecysUnknown) November 18, 2016

Kanye West, 2005: president Bush doesn’t care about black people
Kanye to Kanye, 2016: neither do you pic.twitter.com/kBHnZeg7RY

— Jocelyn Aspa (@jocelynaspa) November 18, 2016

It seems pretty crazy that Kanye thinks Donald Trump should be president until you remember that Kanye also thinks Kanye should be president

— . (@browniecdg) November 18, 2016

every single person in the crowd at the kanye concert: please please dont talk ab the election

kanye: i have something to say

crowd: fuck

— Cody Ko (@codyko) November 18, 2016

How I sleep at night knowing I never bought Yeezys pic.twitter.com/s0mKV2MBTH

— PROD. BY @VERYRVRE (@TVSH_P) November 18, 2016

West is no stranger to negative controversies, and likely won’t lose sleep over his comments. Who knows, his Trump outburst may have been a clever publicity stunt given that he plans to “run for president in 2020.” We’ll just have to wait and see.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kanye West Booed After Saying He Would Have Voted for Trump appeared first on Law Street.

One of the best things to come out of this year’s ridiculously messy and drawn-out election cycle was Kate McKinnon’s impression of Hillary Clinton on “Saturday Night Live.” (Although, Larry David’s Bernie Sanders and Alec Baldwin’s Donald Trump renditions were almost as priceless.) On Saturday night’s episode McKinnon reprised her Clinton character by singing “Hallelujah” and ending her song with “I’m not giving up and neither should you!”

Here’s the full cold open:

It was an interesting move for the show–not clearly a comedic take on Tuesday night’s results, but also Clinton’s campaign juxtaposed with some of the lyrics added a touch of poignant levity. For example, she sang:

I did my best, it wasn’t much, I couldn’t feel, so I tried to touch.

I’ve told the truth, I didn’t come to fool you. And even though it all went wrong, I’ll stand before the lord of song, with nothing on my tongue but hallelujah.

The scene was also a nice remembrance of the song’s writer, Leonard Cohen, who died earlier this week.

Alec Baldwin didn’t come back as Trump this week; he had previously said he “hoped” he wouldn’t be back, seemingly indicating that he hoped that Trump wouldn’t win the election and require a new skit.

It’s unclear if Baldwin will continue to play Trump throughout the duration of his presidency. While he makes a perfect Trump, he doesn’t seem to enjoy the role very much. Appearing on “The Brian Lehrer Show” recently, he said:

I’m not an impressionist, per se, but if you do any kind of comedy and they ask you to do that, most of the time, there’s some degree of appreciation, I think, involving somebody you like. Trump is somebody who, I don’t hate Trump, but he’s not somebody I admire, so it was more difficult.

So whether this marks the end of McKinnon’s Clinton, Baldwin’s Trump, or both, it’s a sad day for “SNL.”

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kate McKinnon’s Hillary Clinton Has a Perfect Election Wrap Up Song appeared first on Law Street.

USA Network has picked up the pilot for a new scripted true crime series based on the infamous unsolved murders of Tupac Shakur and Biggie Smalls.

According to The Hollywood Reporter, “Unsolved” will be based on the experiences of LAPD Detective Greg Kading, who led the law enforcement task force responsible for investigating both high profile murders.

Kading, who documented his experiences in the book “Murder Rap: The Untold Story of Biggie Smalls & Tupac Shakur Murder Investigations,” is consulting on the project and will also serve as its co-executive producer.

Tupac was shot four times while riding in a car driven by record producer (and all around sketchy dude) Suge Knight, after attending a Mike Tyson boxing match in Las Vegas on September 7, 1996. He died six days later, on September 13, 1996, from internal bleeding in a Las Vegas hospital.

Six months later, Biggie met the same fate. While stopped at a red light in his Suburban SUV on March 9, 1997, the driver of a dark colored Chevrolet Impala pulled alongside him, rolled down his window, and unloaded four shots into the East Coast rapper.

Both murders were never solved, and for decades fans and conspiracy theorists have agonized over what really happened to the the feuding hip hop stars.

“Unsolved” will be written and executively produced by Kyle Long of USA’s hit legal show “Suits.” Anthony Hemingway, who worked on several episodes of FX’s true crime breakout “The People v. O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story,” will direct the pilot.

In Kading’s self-published “Murder Rap” he theorized that Suge Knight and Sean “Diddy” Combs were responsible for the murders and that the LAPD suppressed evidence.

This isn’t the first time both rappers have had their lives portrayed in biopics. The 2009 drama “Notorious” chronicled the life and death of Biggie (a.k.a. Christopher Wallace), and was met with mediocre reviews.  Tupac’s biopic “All Eyez on Me” is set to appear in movie theaters in 2017, with “Notorious” star Jamal Woolard reprising his role as The Notorious B.I.G.

Given the popularity of the show’s lead characters, this series will likely garner just as much buzz as “The People vs. O.J. Simpson”–if not more.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post True Crime Watch: Tupac & Biggie Murders Explored in New TV Pilot appeared first on Law Street.

Actor Brad Pitt was cleared of alleged child abuse after being investigated by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services.

The accusation stemmed from an incident on a private plane in September–occurring one day before Angelina Jolie filed for divorce from Pitt after two years of marriage.

A representative for Angelina Jolie told FOX411 that the actress was relieved Pitt had been cleared:

The job of the [Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services] is to make sure the children are in a safe and secure situation. As we said earlier this week, childcare professionals encouraged a legal agreement accepted and signed by both sides that was in the best interest of the children. Angelina said from the beginning that she felt she had to take action for the health of the family and is relieved that after their 8-week involvement, the DCFS is now satisfied the safeguards are put in place that will allow the children to heal.

Jolie is seeking sole physical custody of the couple’s six children–currently, she has full custody and Pitt is following an agreement that allows him “therapeutic visits” with his children.

A source familiar with the situation told Vanity Fair that some reports may be misrepresenting the situation:

Angelina has never accused him of child abuse, she wasn’t the one who asked for the D.C.F.S. to become involved. All she’s ever said is that she was concerned about the health of the family. If you take a look at the facts, they are indisputable. D.C.F.S. was involved for eight weeks. Child abuse is kind of the ceiling; the fact that he was cleared for child abuse doesn’t mean that nothing happened on the plane. Something required the safeguards that were put in place . . . If nothing happened, why would the current legal agreement that was encouraged by child-care professionals keep the kids in custody with therapeutic visits from Brad.

Pitt filed paperwork with the Los Angeles Superior Court last Friday seeking joint and physical custody. On Tuesday, Pitt appeared at a public event for the first time since the split was reported. The event promoted his new film “Allied” which will hit theaters nationwide on November 23.

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Brangelina Divorce Watch: Brad Pitt Cleared in Child Abuse Investigation appeared first on Law Street.

Hulk Hogan will be receiving at least $31 million to settle his privacy case against Gawker, after the media company published his sex tape, according to court documents.

This feud between Gawker, its founder, Nick Denton, and Terry Bollea–Hogan’s real name–has been going on since the $100 million defamation case was filed in 2012.

The privacy in question pertained to a sex tape of Hogan and Heather Cole, who was the wife of Hogan’s best friend Bubba “the Love Sponge” Clem at the time, that Gawker featured on its website. While it did not play the entire video, it played over a minute and a half chunk of it, while other news sites only showed stills and discussed the video.

Gawker named the story, in its usual gossipy way, “Even for a Minute, Watching Hulk Hogan Have Sex in a Canopy Bed is Not Safe For Work but Watch it Anyway.” The story not only included part of the video, but offered a graphic play-by-play of the sex tape for those who didn’t want to watch. Hogan claimed that he was secretly filmed.

The subsequent case forced Gawker to file for bankruptcy after a jury awarded Hogan $140 million in March. Peter Thiel, Silicon Valley billionaire, was secretly funding Hogan’s case against Gawker.

Thiel explained in a New York Times article in August why he funded Hogan’s case:

In 2007, I was outed by the online gossip blog Gawker. It wasn’t so many years ago, but it was a different time: Gay men had to navigate a world that wasn’t always welcoming, and often faced difficult choices about how to live safely and with dignity. In my case, Gawker decided to make those choices for me. I had begun coming out to people I knew, and I planned to continue on my own terms. Instead, Gawker violated my privacy and cashed in on it.

Denton broke the news on his blog, with a piece titled “A hard peace,” where he wrote, “After four years of litigation funded by a billionaire with a grudge going back even further, a settlement has been reached. The saga is over.”

He then goes on to discuss how “three true stories” are going to be taken down.

Denton said he was confident that the appeals would overturn the original judgement.

“I will continue to work on topic forums, still convinced that the internet can bring people together in shared understanding rather than just triggering conflict between them,” Denton wrote. “Hulk Hogan’s retirement will be comfortable.”

In August, Univision acquired Gawker Media for $135 million. While Gawker itself has since been shut down, websites like Gizmodo, Jalopnik, Jezebel, Deadspin, Lifehacker, and Kotaku still publish content.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Gawker to Pay Hulk Hogan $31 Million in Settlement appeared first on Law Street.

Justin Timberlake caused quite a stir on Tuesday after authorities reportedly said they were investigating the pop star for breaking the law. Timberlake flew home to Memphis for early voting and took a selfie, but Tennessee actually prohibits ballot selfies.

In May 2015, Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam signed a statewide bill that prohibits voters from taking pictures or recording conversations in a voting booth. A person convicted of the violation can face up to 30 days in jail and be fined $50.

Timberlake posted the picture on Instagram to encourage his fans to vote.

“Hey! You! Yeah, YOU! I just flew from LA to Memphis to #rockthevote,” he captioned the post. “There could be early voting in your town too. If not, November 8th! Choose to have a voice! If you don’t, then we can’t HEAR YOU! Get out and VOTE! #exerciseyourrighttovote.”

WATCH: @jtimberlake‘s selfie snafu. Did the star break the law in a polling booth? https://t.co/L2zBzaSj8phttps://t.co/0WCok9slrx

— Good Morning America (@GMA) October 26, 2016

According to earlier reports, the District Attorney’s office said it had been “made aware of a possible violation of state election law” and the matter was “under review.” Vince Higgins, communications director for the office of Shelby County District Attorney General Amy Weirich, admitted that the statement was incorrect.

“While we are aware of an allegation that someone may have violated a Tennessee state election law, we have not been presented anything by an investigative authority,” Higgins said.

“The statement released earlier by my office regarding Justin Timberlake and an investigation was incorrect and was released without my knowledge,” Weirich said. “No one in our office is currently investigating this matter nor will we be using our limited resources to do so.”

It is illegal to take a photograph in a voting booth in 18 states in the U.S., according to the Associated Press.

The star of DreamWorks’ “Trolls” didn’t share who he voted for, but it can be assumed he voted for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Timberlake and his wife Jessica Biel attended a fundraising event for Clinton in August.

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Saga of Justin Timberlake’s Unlawful Ballot Selfie appeared first on Law Street.

Because this year’s election couldn’t get any weirder, song spoofer extraordinaire Weird Al autotuned his own version of the third presidential debate. The song, aptly called “Bad Hombres, Nasty Women,” was released by Schmoyoho, a Youtube channel that mostly features autotuned songs and videos. In the video, Weird Al acts as the moderator, posing “questions” to the candidates, and then autotuning and mixing the answers they actually gave at the debate itself. Check it out below:

While the answers were just autotuned versions of the ones that Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and Republican nominee Donald Trump said at the actual debate on Wednesday night, Weird Al’s questions, were, of course, facetious. Weird Al asked if they would thumb wrestle Vladimir Putin–whose name obviously came up a lot on Wednesday. He also asked the candidates about their Supreme Court plans, noting that he would not be in the running–which is unfortunate if you were looking forward to autotuned and spoofed judicial decisions. In true rhyming fashion, other questions from Weird Al included: “can everyone achieve the American dream?” and “should they sign up for my Ponzi scheme?”

This, of course, isn’t the first fantastic spoof to come out of the exhausting debates between the two candidates. Bad Lip Reading did a very solid rendition of the first debate:

And of course, everyone has loved “Saturday Night Live’s” version of the debates, starring Kate McKinnon as Hillary Clinton, and Alec Baldwin as a fantastic Donald Trump:

While this election cycle might feel like it’s never-ending, at least there are plenty of funny things to watch.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Weird Al Releases His Own Version of the Third Presidential Debate appeared first on Law Street.

The “Today Show’s” Billy Bush faced extreme backlash from network executives and the public after an audio recording surfaced of the television host having a lewd conversation with Donald J. Trump.

The compromising recording from 2005–in which Trump brags about groping women–quickly became the business mogul’s most pressing issue to date as Republican officials unendorsed their party’s nominee. The GOP presidential nominee posted a statement on social media, telling voters that he is not a “perfect person” and that the words captured in 2005 “don’t reflect who I am.”

In the recording, Bush also exchanged lewd and misogynistic remarks about women. Bush, known as the nephew of former President George H. W. Bush and the cousin of former President George W. Bush and Jeb Bush, worked for Access Hollywood at the time.

Bush issued a statement on Friday evening saying, “Obviously I’m embarrassed and ashamed. It’s no excuse, but this happened 11 years ago–I was younger, less mature, and acted foolishly in playing along. I’m very sorry.”

Everyone hasn’t been so quick to accept the apology.

Noah Oppenheim, the NBC executive in charge of “Today,” wrote in a memo to his staff members on Sunday that “I know we’ve all been deeply troubled by the revelations of the past 48 hours.”

“Let me be clear–there is simply no excuse for Billy’s language and behavior on that tape,” he said. “NBC has decided to suspend Billy, pending further review of this matter.”

Bush co-hosts the third hour of the “Today Show” and has remained off-air since Monday. This isn’t his first time coming under fire during his brief stint on the show. Bush, was the first to report the debunked Ryan Lochte robbery scandal and it led to questions about his journalistic approach.

The leak leads to larger questions about journalism ethics. The 44-year-old television host withheld knowledge of a presidential nominee admitting to sexual assault.

“Late Night” TV host Seth Meyers unleashed on Donald Trump and his performance in Sunday night’s debate. Meyers referred to him as “the pervert on the bus” and said that there is “currently a higher standard for the third hour of the “Today Show” than there is for the Republican nominee for president.”

Bush’s future remains unclear. A variety of media sources have speculated that his official departure is only a matter of time.

Sources: Billy Bush’s departure from NBC matter of “when,” not “if” — @brianstelter reports https://t.co/d9B2PW78Hohttps://t.co/lO8dviqF9n

— CNN Newsroom (@CNNnewsroom) October 12, 2016

Bush worked on “Access Hollywood,” NBC’s entertainment news show, for nearly 15 years before being promoted to “Today” in August, after contributing to the network’s coverage of the 2016 Olympic Games in Brazil.

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NBC’s “Today” Show Has Higher Standards Than the GOP appeared first on Law Street.

After a compromising audio recording from 2005–in which Donald Trump brags about groping women–was revealed last week, Trump had no other option than to apologize. But it nevertheless made several Republicans withdraw their support for him. After hearing the recording, House Speaker Paul Ryan said that he hopes Trump “works to demonstrate to the country that he has greater respect for women than this clip suggests,” which made John Oliver burst out in a wordy monolog on Sunday, barely stopping to take a breath.

“It is too late in absolutely every way,” John Oliver said of the recent round of un-endorsements. “First, it’s October of an election year, and second, he’s fucking 70.”

He went on to show clips of different Republicans revoking their support of the Republican nominee after hearing the tape. Many did so with words like, “I have five daughters,” or, “I have a wife, I have a daughter, I have a mother, and I have five sisters.”

It should not be necessary to have to go through, as Oliver says, “such an elaborate six-degrees-of-separation exercise to arrive at someone with a Y chromosome that you can feel sorry for,” to think it’s not okay to talk like that about other human beings.

Here’s the full clip:

John McCain wrote in a statement on Saturday that he will not vote for Trump. In an earlier statement, he said: “He alone bears the burden of his conduct and alone should suffer the consequences.” For that, John Oliver called him out. “He alone does not bear the burden of his conduct because he alone did not make himself your party’s nominee,” he said to Republicans who’ve supported Trump up until now. “All of you have consistently supported him through some absolutely heinous shit.”

He added:

In his very first campaign speech, he called Mexicans ‘rapists’–and that was just the beginning. Because since then, he’s proposed a temporary ban on Muslim immigrants; advocated for killing terrorists’ families, which is, by the way, a war crime; argued for waterboarding even if it doesn’t obtain information because, and I quote: ‘they deserve it anyway;’ and just this week he stood by his claims that the Central Park Five were guilty despite the fact that DNA evidence has since exonerated them.

At this point, no one can pretend to be shocked by Donald Trump’s behavior, especially not the people that have stood by him despite wildly offensive comments that have all but become the signature of his campaign.

He ended by saying that this is essentially the logical conclusion of the election cycle:

The first female presidential nominee versus the human embodiment of every backward, condescending, ‘Mad Men’-esque boys’ club attitude that has ever existed, rolled into one giant, salivating, dick size–referencing, pussy-grabbing warthog in a red power tie.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post John Oliver Rips Republicans Who Waited Until Now to Un-Endorse Trump appeared first on Law Street.

On Sunday night Kim Kardashian was robbed at gunpoint in her hotel room in Paris; she was there to attend Fashion Week. The robbers, who were wearing masks and were dressed as police officers, stole jewelry totaling $10 million.

Kardashian was staying at a nine-apartment mansion that is often frequented by celebrities like Madonna and Leonardo DiCaprio. Around 2:30 AM on Sunday, the concierge let a couple of men in. They then threatened him with a gun, handcuffed him, and made him take them to Kardashian’s apartment, where they tied her up in the bathroom while holding a gun to her head. After going through her jewelry, they left. Allegedly her stylist managed to alert the real police, who later found the night guard in a staircase with hands and feet bound.

Kim was shaken but physically okay, according to a statement from her spokeswoman. Her children were not in the apartment. She later left Paris on her private jet and flew home to New York.

On Sunday night, her husband Kanye West cut his show at Meadows Music and Arts Festival in New York short with the words “I’m sorry, family emergency, I have to stop the show.” Fans initially reacted with confusion and anger.

Here’s a photo of Kanye West’s show right before it ended. Like everyone was shock it just ended. No reason given, just “family emergency.” pic.twitter.com/y4Rfk5n3h9

— Frank Pallotta (@frankpallotta) October 3, 2016

Last week was not an easy one for Kim Kardashian West. She was the recipient of a prank by internet celebrity prankster Vitalii Sediuk, who tried to kiss her butt when she exited her car. Her bodyguard quickly wrestled him to the ground, but she said she wants to file a report and get a restraining order. Apparently Sediuk was protesting plastic surgery and wanted the Kardashians to promote a more natural look for the millions of young girls who look up to them.

As news of the robbery broke on Monday morning, the internet started reacting not with compassion, but with mockery.

Kim Kardashian gets robbed and the whole world is in an uproar.

Harambe was brutally murdered and the world was silent.

— ædonis | hotep (@lordaedonis) October 3, 2016

Luckily, tweets defending Kim later surfaced on social media, pointing out how bizarre it is to make fun of someone being robbed just because she’s a celebrity.

People making jokes about @KimKardashian tonight would do well to remember that she’s a mother,a daughter,a wife,a friend.Be nice or shut up

— James Corden (@JKCorden) October 3, 2016

Kinda loving @kanyewest for jumping off that stage for his wife… yes sir… love that. Family first.

— Jaime Primak (@JaimePrimak) October 3, 2016

Don’t make memes out of Kim Kardashian being robbed at gunpoint it really isn’t funny. One click and 2 kids could’ve been motherless

— Girls be like… (@girlhoodposts) October 3, 2016

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kim Kardashian Robbed at Gunpoint in Paris appeared first on Law Street.

Ageism is a prevalent problem in Hollywood, especially for actresses. Many, many actresses–Maggie Gyllenhaal, Patricia Arquette, Meryl Streep, Zoe Saldana, Sarah Silverman, Jane Fonda, Cate Blanchett, and others–have spoken out against sexism and ageism in Hollywood. But what if actresses were able to obscure their age on sites like IMDB? Would that give them a leg up when it comes to  landing parts? California just passed a law that would allow actors and actresses to remove their ages from their IMDB and similar professional entertainment pages, potentially putting that question to the test.

The text of the law, signed by Governor Jerry Brown, “will force subscription websites used by casting services and entertainment employers to remove age information in online profiles if asked.”

This comes after a lawsuit last year in which actress Junie Hoang sued IMDB for revealing her age. She claimed that her age being published hurt her career, and that IMDB breached her privacy by publicizing it. While she lost the lawsuit, it was certainly an interesting question, and opened up the conversation that this new law sort of stemmed from.

However, it’s not necessarily that simple. They Hollywood Reporter’s Jonathan Handel brought up the fact that the new law could violate First Amendment rights. First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams told the Hollywood Reporter:

The statute seems to me of the most dubious constitutionality. Birth dates are facts. It’s hard to see how the government, consistently with the First Amendment‎, can bar or punish their disclosure.

However Democratic Assembly Majority Leader Ian Calderon, who sponsored the bill, argued that it wasn’t censorship. He said:

Requiring websites to remove all age information from profiles would seem to run afoul of the First Amendment restrictions on the regulation of commercial speech. Limiting the bill to only subscribers makes it clear that the bill advances an important government interest — that of reducing age discrimination in a manner that is substantially related to that interest and no more extensive than necessary to achieve that interest.

Obviously this won’t make much of a difference for already established actresses, whose birthdays are quite easy to figure out. But it may make a difference for up-and-coming talent, or at least let actresses (and some actors) take the emphasis off their ages and let their work stand on its own. There’s still a lot of work to do to fight ageism in Hollywood, but maybe this will serve a tiny first step.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Can a New California Law Help Stop Ageism in Hollywood? appeared first on Law Street.

Brangelina is officially over!

Angelina Jolie reportedly filed for divorce from Brad Pitt on Monday, citing irreconcilable differences. She is seeking full physical custody and joint legal custody of their six children.

According to the Associated Press, Robert Offer, an attorney for Jolie Pitt, said that the decision to divorce was made “for the health of the family.” Jolie lists the date of separation as September 15, 2016.

While speculation is swirling as to the specific reason for the divorce, a number of media outlets have obtained statements from sources claiming to know the real cause for the split. TMZ claimed to have spoken with sources who allege that Jolie filed for divorce after being “fed up” with Pitt’s parenting methods and consumption of weed and alcohol. Another source told Page Six that the divorce is a result of Pitt’s alleged affair with actress Marion Cotillard, his “Allied” costar.

Jolie and Pitt began dating in 2005 while filming the movie “Mr. & Mrs. Smith” and married in August 2014 after a two-year engagement.

Pitt responded to the filing in a statement to People Magazine.

“I am very saddened by this, but what matters most now is the well-being of our kids,” he said in the statement. “I kindly ask the press to give them the space they deserve during this challenging time.”

This is Jolie’s third marriage and Pitt’s second. The couple has six children together: 15-year-old Maddox (adopted from Cambodia in 2002), 12-year-old Pax (adopted from Vietnam in 2007), 11-year-old Zahara (adopted from Ethiopia in early 2005), 10-year-old Shiloh, and 8-year-old twins Knox and Vivienne. Jolie is asking the judge to give Pitt visitation with the children.

According to Radar Online, Pitt and Jolie reportedly signed a prenuptial agreement that stipulated “If Brad gets too serious with another woman while they are married, she’ll get primary custody if they split.” However, TMZ is reporting that no third party played a role in the couple’s split.

Celebrity divorce attorney Laura Wasser is representing Jolie in the divorce. She also represented Jolie in her divorce with Billy Bob Thorton. Jolie is not seeking any spousal support.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Brangelina is Over: Why is Angelina Jolie Filing for Divorce from Brad Pitt? appeared first on Law Street.

Hollywood’s elite gathered last night in Los Angeles, California to celebrate the 68th Primetime Emmy Awards, and the stars that hit the stage made it very clear that politics were on their minds.

The ceremony, hosted by Jimmy Kimmel in the Microsoft Theater, celebrated shows such as HBO’s political satire “Veep” and epic fantasy drama “Game of Thrones”–winning two and three awards respectively. Ryan Murphy’s crime anthology “The People v. O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story” scored big and won five awards, the most awards of the night.

Kimmel was quick to set the tone of the show during his opening number–a quick-witted video that showcased television’s favorite faces as the late-night host hitchhiked his way to the award ceremony. Kimmel eventually found himself in the presence of “Veep” President Selina Meyer’s motorcade, driven by former GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush.

The comedian stressed the importance of his arrival due to his hosting gig and nomination. Bush displayed excellent comedic timing and quipped, “If you run a positive campaign, the voters ultimately will make the right choice,” before telling a hopeful Kimmel that he was joking. The jab directed at Republican nominee Donald Trump, referenced his hostile tone and critical analysis of Bush’s energy.

Watch Kimmel’s Road to the Emmys below

Kimmel’s opening monologue proved to be successful. He garnered laughs from the crowd with jokes about diversity and the making of Donald Trump.

“If it weren’t for television, would Donald Trump be running for president? No,” Kimmel said. “He would be at home right now quietly rubbing up against his wife, Malaria, while she pretends to be asleep.”

Kimmel proclaimed the person who should be blamed for the Trump phenomenon was sitting in the audience–hidden amongst the sea of nominees.

“That’s right. That guy. Mark Burnett, the man who brought us ‘Celebrity Apprentice’,” Kimmel said. “Thanks to Mark Burnett, we don’t have to watch reality shows anymore, because we’re living in one. Thank you, Mark.”

The nominees who hit the stage only added to the fire.

“Veep” star Julia Louis-Dreyfus joked about life imitating art during her acceptance speech. On the topic of the current election she said:

I’d like to take this opportunity to personally apologize for the current political climate. I think “Veep” has torn down the wall between comedy and politics. Our show started out as political satire, but now feels more like a sobering documentary. So I certainly do promise to rebuild that wall and make Mexico pay for it.

Best comedy series writing winner Aziz Ansari also touched on politics during his acceptance speech, by declaring onstage “after careful consideration, I’m going with Trump!” He then went on to demand that they remove all Muslim and Hispanic nominees from the Emmy ceremony which he said would make things so much easier–“like the Oscars.”

“Transparent” star Jill Soloway took home Best Director of a Comedy Series. Soloway’s speech focused on the importance of LGBTQ+ issues and encouraged the toppling of the patriarchy.

Backstage she made bold statements about the current election cycle and drew upon the connection between Trump and Hitler. “It’s so incredibly timely, the notion of otherizing people to gain political power,” Soloway said. “Jews were otherized in Nazi Germany to gain political power, and right now Donald Trump is doing the same thing.” As an example, she said, “He calls women pigs if they don’t look like beauty-pageant contestants. He blames Muslims and Mexicans for our problems. He makes fun of disabled people. This is otherizing with a capital O. It has been used in our history before to start and win wars. “

Reactions from the public ranged. Users on Twitter were quick to praise the Emmys for celebrating diversity, as well as criticize the award show for the one-sided political storyline.

Last night’s wonderfully inclusive, diverse #Emmys was a rebuke of everything Trump stands for: https://t.co/sA03obd0VC

— Marlow Stern (@MarlowNYC) September 19, 2016

At #Emmys, @jillsoloway called Trump “an inheritor to Hitler.” No comment on HRC calling an aide, “f—g Jew bastard,” calling Jews greedy?

— Larry Elder (@larryelder) September 19, 2016

As we inch closer and closer to the upcoming election, we should expect to see more political rhetoric filtering into our entertainment.

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Emmy Awards Provide A Platform For Political Agendas appeared first on Law Street.

A judge in Atlanta ruled in a civil lawsuit that Bobbi Kristina Brown’s boyfriend Nick Gordon is legally responsible for her death. He repeatedly failed to show up in court, which led the conservator of her estate to win the suit by default. The lawsuit originally sought $50 million in damages for Brown’s unlawful death. A final amount will be determined by a jury in light of Friday’s ruling.

Bobbi Kristina Brown, the daughter of Whitney Houston and Bobby Brown, died in a way that was chillingly similar to that of her mother. In January 2015 she was found unconscious, face down in a bathtub in her Atlanta home. She died in hospice care in July that year.

According to her autopsy, she had morphine, cocaine, alcohol, and prescription drugs in her body when she died. Because of the unclear circumstances surrounding her death, no one was certain whether it was a suicide, murder, or an accident. Nick Gordon was never charged with a crime for Brown’s death.

In August 2015, the conservator of Brown’s estate, attorney Bedelia Hargrove, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Gordon. The lawsuit accused him assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and transferring money from her account without authorization.

JUST IN: Nick Gordon ‘found responsible’ for death of Bobbi Kristina Brown by judge https://t.co/CmJLuWfPju pic.twitter.com/4zZ9smwqSy via @ajc

— Laura A. Harris (@LauraHarrisWFTS) September 16, 2016

According to the lawsuit, Gordon came home intoxicated after a night out and got into an argument with Brown. During the ensuing exchange, the court filing alleges that he gave her a “toxic cocktail,” which left her unconscious. It  also claims Gordon then put her face down in a bathtub filled with cold water, which caused her to suffer brain damages. Gordon then went into the bedroom, where a female guest was waiting, and said, “Now I want a pretty little white girl like you.” After about 15 minutes he tried to wake Brown up and unsuccessfully preformed CPR.

Gordon’s best friend spoke out about Brown’s in court, saying that she once called him in panic after Gordon attacked her. Gordon has continuously denied having anything to do with Brown’s death, but because he failed to show up in court on multiple occasions, the court ruled against him.

R. David Ware, a lawyer for Brown’s conservator, said after the ruling:

In court today, we finally finished a long journey for justice for Bobbi Kristina Brown. The court agrees with us, by striking Mr. Gordon’s answer that he is legally responsible for her death. The only thing left to prove is the value of her life. We intend to do that.

But Brown’s aunt who spoke to reporters outside of the courthouse was still filled with anger. Although she was pleased with the court’s ruling, she said she wanted to see justice for her niece and for Gordon to be arrested.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Nick Gordon Found Responsible In Death of Bobbi Kristina Brown appeared first on Law Street.

The mystery that is Donald Trump’s hair has perplexed the masses for years. Trump never leaves his penthouse without his signature golden retriever comb over, despite being mocked mercilessly for it. But what’s going on in there? Is it real? Is it fake? Is it a toupee? Or possibly a hair transplant? America wants to know!

“Tonight Show” host Jimmy Fallon had the privilege of seeing the billionaire’s tresses up close Thursday night, and had the audacity to ask Trump if he could “mess up his hair.”

And Trump let him!

From the looks of it, the hair is definitely attached to Trump’s head, so that rules out a toupee. But whether or not it’s some sort of weave or extensions, I think that’s still up for debate. Either way, a big thank you to Fallon and Trump for making all of our days. The moment will surely go down as one of the best from this election cycle.

Watch Fallon mess up Trump’s hair in the video below:

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Donald Trump Actually Let Jimmy Fallon Mess Up His Hair appeared first on Law Street.

The New York Times teamed up with music mogul Jay Z and illustrator Molly Crabapple to release a short op-ed film Thursday critiquing the United State’s war on drugs.

The film, which is titled “A History on the War on Drugs: From Prohibition to the Gold Rush,” is written and narrated by Jay Z, and is described by the Times as being “part history lesson about the war on drugs and part vision statement.”

Paired  perfectly with Crabapple’s vivid animations, Jay Z  critiques the double standards existing between drug dealers–more specifically between poor people of color and their wealthy white counterparts.

The project was proposed last year by Dream Hampton, the filmmaker and a co-author of Jay Z’s book “Decoded.” According to the New York Times:

Ms. Hampton wanted to tackle the contradiction raised by Michelle Alexander, the author of “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness,” in 2014: Why were white men poised to get rich doing the very same thing that African-American boys and men had long been going to prison for?

“In 1986, when I was coming of age, Ronald Reagan doubled down on the war on drugs, that had been started by Richard Nixon in 1971,” Jay says in the beginning of the film of the Nixon administration. “Drugs were bad, fried your brain and drug dealers were monsters, sole reason neighborhoods and major cities were failing.”

He goes on to explain how the federal government made a distinction between people who sold powder cocaine and people who sold crack cocaine, even though they were the same drug, but were consumed differently. This led to courts handing out mandatory life sentences for low-level drug sales–that just  so happened to specifically target African Americans. Jay Z says,

Even though white people used and sold crack more than Black people, somehow it was Black people who went to prison. The media ignored actual data to this day, crack it’s still talked about as Black problem.

For years people have struggled to understand the topic of mass incarceration of African Americans, especially since they make up around 13 percent of the U.S.  population, yet are 31 percent of those arrested for drug law violations, even though they use and sell drugs at the same rate as whites. This visually stunning op-ed continues to open up the dialogue on this topic, as well as help strive for necessary changes to our flawed judicial system

For a full transcript of the film click here

Watch the Video Below

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Jay Z Explains Why the War on Drugs is an ‘Epic Fail’ appeared first on Law Street.

Katie Couric, famous journalist and current Yahoo! Global News Anchor, now faces a $12 million lawsuit for her recent documentary “Under the Gun.” The plaintiffs in the suit are members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League who were interviewed for the movie and claim that their representation in the film was unfairly edited and amounts to defamation.

The Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), as well as two of its individual members, filed a lawsuit against Couric and others that produced the film in a U.S. District Court in Richmond, in which they argue that a clip of the movie was edited unfairly and constitutes defamation. The lawsuit reportedly seeks $12 million in compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages per plaintiff.

The segment in question involves Couric’s interview with several members of the VCDL, specifically the clip involving a question about their views on background checks for gun purchases. The clip was edited to make it appear as though the plaintiffs were unable to answer a question, when in fact, they quickly responded to Couric.

Here’s the clip as it appeared in the movie:

And here’s the audio from the actual interaction given to the Washington Free Beacon:

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs argue,

The fictional exchange is defamatory because it holds the Plaintiffs up as objects of ridicule by falsely representing that, as experts in their respective pro-Second Amendment trades, they had no basis for their opposition to universal background checks.

It’s pretty obvious that the movie’s editing amounts to a dishonest representation of what happened. The film makes it look like Couric’s question–which asks whether background checks are necessary to prevent terrorists and criminals from purchasing guns–completely stumped the members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League whom she was talking to. But when you listen to the actual audio, you notice that the interviewees almost immediately provide a rebuttal. Moreover, the film was edited to show b-roll footage of the VCDL members sitting still for about eight seconds after they were asked the question prior to cutting to the next scene. This added to viewers’ perceptions that they were stumped by the question when, in fact, they quickly responded.

This is also something that Couric herself has admitted. In a statement on the documentary’s website, Couric wrote, “I take responsibility for a decision that misrepresented an exchange I had with members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League.” She continued: “I went back and reviewed it and agree that those eight seconds do not accurately represent their response.”

Although everyone can agree that the clip was misleading, the question that remains is whether it amounts to defamation. Defamation lawsuits are not easy cases to win. The plaintiffs will need to prove that Couric and the other producers acted with “actual malice.” This means that not only was their work false or misleading, but it also intended to do reputational harm to those in the clip.

A misleading portrayal of someone may be less likely to be considered defamatory compared to showing something insulting about a person that is verifiably false. Defamation claims also need “clear and convincing evidence” to support their claims, a relatively high standard for the burden of proof.

In response to the lawsuit, a spokesperson for Stephanie Soechtig, the movie’s director who is also named in the suit, told CNN:

It’s ironic that people who so passionately defend the Second Amendment want to trample the rights guaranteed to a filmmaker under the First. Stephanie stands by ‘Under the Gun’ and will not stop her work on behalf of victims of gun violence

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Katie Couric Faces $12 Million Defamation Lawsuit for Gun Documentary appeared first on Law Street.

Transgender actress, performer, and activist Alexis Arquette passed away on Sunday around midnight at the age of 47. Alexis was the sibling of actors David, Rosanna, Patricia, and Richmond Arquette. The cause of death is not known, but she was reportedly surrounded by family members singing David Bowie’s “Starman” as she passed. According to Alexis’ wishes they all cheered as she “passed to another dimension.”

Alexis Arquette: actor and activist dies aged 47 https://t.co/d5oN9e9R5U

— The Guardian (@guardian) September 12, 2016

Her sister Patricia tweeted a link to Bowie’s song early Sunday, with the words “Breaking through the veil singing StarMan.”

Breaking through the veil singing StarMan https://t.co/A3way5S3Lb

— Patricia Arquette (@PattyArquette) September 11, 2016

Alexis was born as Robert Arquette in Los Angeles in 1969. She came from a family full of actors–the siblings’ father and grandfather were also in the business. She was best known for her roles in “Last Exit To Brooklyn,” “Pulp Fiction,” and as a Boy George impersonator in “The Wedding Singer,” with Adam Sandler. The real Boy George expressed his condolences on Twitter.

R.I.P my sister Alexis Arquette. Another bright light gone out far too soon. Love to the family and all that loved Alexis.

— Boy George (@BoyGeorge) September 11, 2016

Alexis knew early on that she was trans. In a 2008 interview with The Times, her sister Patricia said that Alexis started dressing in girls’ clothes at the age of four and later realized that she wasn’t a gay man, she was simply a woman in the wrong body.

Alexis Arquette was also a prominent transgender activist and appeared in VH1’s reality show “The Surreal Life,” which depicted celebrities living together in a Hollywood house trying to decide what their next step in their careers would be. While on the show, she highlighted transgender issues for a broader audience, and continued to do so in the documentary “Alexis Arquette: She’s My Brother” in 2007. The film focused on her transition through her and her family’s eyes. According to the LA Times, she said:

Coming out as transgender in America from a celebrity family is a lot easier than it can be for private individuals anywhere else in the world. In fact, if you come out as transgender in certain parts of the world, you may be murdered in the street.

The Human Rights Campaign acknowledged Alexis’ work for transgender rights and equality on Twitter.

.@HRC mourns the death of Alexis Arquette, an actor & longtime advocate for transgender equality.Our condolences to Alexis’ family & friends

— HumanRightsCampaign (@HRC) September 12, 2016

Alexis’ siblings posted the sad news about their sister’s death on social media, David Arquette calling her his “hero for eternity.”

Thank you all for your love and kind words about Alexis. My hero for eternity pic.twitter.com/Z18xLtYTBv

— David Arquette (@DavidArquette) September 11, 2016

David’s ex-wife Courteney Cox also expressed her grief.

My heart goes out to anyone who was lucky enough to know Alexis.
We will love and miss you forever.

— Courteney Cox (@CourteneyCox) September 11, 2016

The family also said in a statement:

Alexis was a brilliant artist and painter, a singer, an entertainer and an actor. We learned what real bravery is through watching her journey of living as a trans woman. We came to discover the one truth – that love is everything. We are comforted by the fact that Alexis came into our family and was our brother and then our sister, and that she gave us so much love. We will love you always, Alexis. We know we were the lucky ones.

The Arquette family asked for privacy and requested that people wishing to express their sympathies donate money to organizations that support the LGBT community.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Transgender Activist and Actress Alexis Arquette Dies at 47 appeared first on Law Street.

Riding high off the success of Ava DuVernay’s “Selma,” David Oyelowo is once again stepping forward in an Oscar contender biopic. This time he portrays Seretse Khama, Botswana’s first president, who caused waves both in Botswana and the UK when he married Ruth Williams, a white Briton played by Rosamund Pike. “A United Kingdom,” which depicts their marriage against the backdrop of British imperialism, digs into attitudes regarding interracial marriage in both black and white communities. It will be easy for certain viewers to applaud the love story and then reassure themselves that we have come so far since the 1940s–which is exactly why Jeff Nichols’ “Loving“ is so necessary. “Loving,” starring Ruth Negga and Joel Edgerton, tells the story of Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving, who were arrested and imprisoned for their interracial marriage in Virginia in 1967. The suit they brought against the state went all the way to the Supreme Court, which ultimately declared prohibiting interracial marriage unconstitutional. “A United Kingdom” introduces the unique space that interracial love occupies in our history while “Loving” reminds audiences exactly how recent legal acceptance of that love is.

“Loving’s” debut at Cannes and “A United Kingdom’s” spot opening the London Film Festival essentially guarantees that they will be at least contenders for Oscar nominations. The joy of Oscar season is that films that are difficult to market in other times of year are thrust onto the public radar. These two films reveal too much about the gritty reality of racism to be written off as sweet romances like last year’s “Brooklyn“ (which depicted the difficulties of two lovers from different ethnic backgrounds but who were both white) yet they also are concerned with love stories so they will not necessarily draw crowds who want heavy hitting drama in the style of “Spotlight” or “The Revenant.” Neither director has quite enough star power to attract an immediate, built-in audience. Amma Asante, director of “A United Kingdom,” already proved herself a master of portraying the complexity of interracial relationships with her film “Belle” in 2013 but Jeff Nichols, director of “Loving,” has previously worked largely in the thriller realm. “Variety’s” review of “Loving” at Cannes describes Loving as “too damn polite” and “The Guardian” labeled the film “underpowered.”  Reviews of “A United Kingdom” have yet to hit the presses.

When looking at the contenders for the 2017 Oscars, these films stand apart–but while that makes them the answer to our wish for cinema that reflects our experience, it also paints a target on them. These films will exist between our traditional concepts of cinema–not classically romantic enough to be considered part of the old guard but not angry enough to be revolutionary calls to action.

In the wake of #OscarsSoWhite, critics and the general public alike are looking for films that will starkly contrast those of last year. There is a desire for more actors and directors of color, more diverse stories and more contemporary storylines. These two films bring all of those elements to the table but the weight that will be placed on them is monumental–they will be expected to be perfect to make up for the mistakes of last year. Asante and Nichols face more pressure than any other directors because they are telling true stories but they have to package them in a precise way: not harsh enough to frighten the critics but not sweet and revisionist in a way that will anger viewers aching in the wake of a summer of violence.

In the search for this perfection, there is a distinct threat that critics will judge these films more harshly than if they were love stories about a couple of the same race. They will be pulled apart because they fail to represent the full scope of interracial marriage (interracial love includes many races beyond black and white), their use of “brand name” Hollywood stars (although Negga could still be considered relatively unknown) and, of course, the fact that they center on interracial relationships–why is Hollywood not making more films concerning love between two people of color? Interracial couples and families deserve to see themselves reflected on screen, to have attention paid to their challenges and history–yet this year, when every Oscar contender with a person of color in the lead role is marked as reactionary in the context of #OscarsSoWhite, more attention will be paid to whether critics approve of the films than to whether the viewing public finds joy in seeing interracial love at the multiplex.

It is rare for a film to strike the perfect balance, to satisfy every viewer while making a larger statement about our culture without being defeatist or romanticist. A film that truly achieves that may come about once every decade–and now we are asking two films to do exactly that within the same year.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Interracial Marriage is Front and Center this Oscars Season appeared first on Law Street.

After a four-year hiatus and seemingly endless teases of new music, Frank Ocean delivered a cryptic gift to fans on August 18 in the form of a mysterious visual album titled “Endless” on Apple Music. While lovers of “Nostalgia Ultra” and “Channel Orange” didn’t hesitate to stream the 45-minute musical project, many audiophiles couldn’t help but wonder if Frank was still yanking our chains with what appeared to be his version of a woodworking performance art piece. But their suspicions were quickly answered.

Two days later Ocean dropped his album “Blonde” via his independent label Boys Don’t Cry. Equipped with genre-bending sounds, famous collaborations, and accompanied by a striking music video for the song “Nikes,” this was the album fans had been waiting for. But why two albums?

As it turns out the double debut was actually part of a well-calculated move on Ocean’s part that allowed him to independently release his album “Blonde” sans the involvement of former label Def Jam and its parent company Universal Music Group (UMG). By dropping “Endless” a few days prior, Ocean effectively fulfilled his contractual obligations, freeing him from the label.

Not only was this strategy lucrative (it’s estimated that Ocean has already earned over $1 million from the album in its first week), but it was essentially a big f**k you to the industry execs who were left what amounts to a very long music video.

According to Billboard, “UMG chairman/CEO Lucian Grainge reacted swiftly by informing the heads of his labels that Universal was done with streaming exclusives on one platform and on a global basis, which has been at the center of the streaming services’ arms race in the last 18 months.”

But is Ocean completely off the hook after staging his grand coup?

Well, it’s hard to say. In July, Billboard reported that Def Jam had spent $2 million on recording costs for Ocean’s album, at the time thought to be called “Boys Don’t Cry.” It’s speculated that Ocean payed this advance back with money from his new deal with Apple, effectively releasing him from any recoupable claims from Def Jam. But if Ocean’s “Endless” failed to meet the label’s quality standards, or if “Blonde’s” release violated contractual time stipulations, Def Jam could have grounds to sue.

UGM hasn’t announced if it is planning to file a lawsuit, so most of this is pure speculation, but if I were Frank, I’d have my legal team keep an eye out over the next couple months.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Could Frank Ocean Be Sued Over ‘Blonde’ Album Switcheroo? appeared first on Law Street.

Taylor Swift’s reason for missing MTV’s Video Music Awards Sunday wasn’t because she was snubbed or because she was avoiding Kim and Kanye. Actually, Swift had a pretty civic excuse–she was called in for jury duty.

The pop superstar appeared in a Nashville, Tennessee court room Monday after being selected as a potential juror in an aggravated rape and kidnapping case. However, she was quickly dismissed by the judge due to a different pending sexual assault lawsuit.

Davidson County District Attorney General’s Office spokesman Ken Whitehouse explained, “She asked to be left off out of concern for an upcoming trial in Denver where she was–she used the term ‘groped’–by a fan at a meet-and-greet.”

The “fan” refers to Colorado DJ David Mueller, who filed a lawsuit first against Swift, alleging that he was wrongfully terminated from his job at 98.5 KYGO over false allegations that he grabbed Swift’s butt while taking a photo.

Swift’s lawyers countersued, claiming, “Mueller did not merely brush his hand against Ms. Swift while posing for the photograph. He lifted her skirt and groped her.”

Because of this pending legal matter, Swift successfully argued that she couldn’t be impartial in the rape case. According to Whitehouse, Swift told the judge she would be more than willing to serve on a jury in any other type of case.

Before leaving the courtroom, Swift was nice enough to pose for pictures with fans, even filming a video message for one fan’s loved ones.

Taylor is doing Jury Duty in Nashville today. She took some pictures with fans. pic.twitter.com/jQunn8HcNT

— Taylor Swift Updates (@TSwiftPR) August 29, 2016

Taylor inside doing Jury Duty in Nashville earlier today. pic.twitter.com/OV0govxfEr

— Taylor Swift Updates (@TSwiftPR) August 29, 2016

Even though Swift was absent from Sunday’s award show, she definitely wasn’t forgotten. Kanye West name dropped Swift during his speech, which came before he premiered his new Flashdance-esque “Fade” music video.  West once again reiterated that he gave Taylor a courtesy call about his song “Famous,” alluding to their most current feud.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Taylor Swift Excused From Nashville Jury Duty Due to Pending ‘Grope’ Case appeared first on Law Street.

“Ghostbusters” actress and “SNL” comedian Leslie Jones was the victim of a vicious hacker attack on Wednesday. Online hackers published her personal information such as photos of her passport and driver’s license, as well as nude photos that seemed to be of her, on her own website. They also bizarrely posted a video of the gorilla Harambe that was killed at a zoo earlier this summer. Her website is now shut down.

Jones’ most recent movie, the remake of “Ghostbusters,” prompted a stream of racist comments and online attacks on Twitter in July. A tech editor at Breitbart named Milo Yiannopoulos even allegedly contributed some of the abuse; as a result Twitter shut down his account. He had received repeated warnings about similar issues.

After being banned from Twitter, Yiannopoulos said (instead of apologizing):

With the cowardly suspension of my account, Twitter has confirmed itself as a safe space for Muslim terrorists and Black Lives Matter extremists, but a no-go zone for conservatives.

He also said it would be the end for the social medium as it doesn’t welcome people who stand for free speech.

Leslie Jones then spoke out on “Late Night With Seth Meyers,” saying that hate speech and freedom of speech are two different things. She pointed out that cyber bullying is really common but many people don’t talk about it since it’s so hard to accomplish anything. But Jones took a strong stand–she publicly declared she was logging off from Twitter and called out her abusers, and then worked with Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to identify all the accounts that had posted the comments.

Jones was back on Twitter in August, live reporting from the Olympics in Rio.

And after the most recent online attacks, many are standing up for Jones.

This @Lesdoggg attack is troubling. The rampant racism percolating in society right now is shameful and sad. She made a movie, that’s it!

— octavia spencer (@octaviaspencer) August 24, 2016

Sharing personal info & pics of women naked are classic cyberabuse tactics. WoC are disproportionately targeted. #solidarity to Leslie Jones

— End Online Misogyny (@misogyny_online) August 24, 2016

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Following Twitter Racism, Hackers Expose Leslie Jones’ Info and Photos appeared first on Law Street.

It’s back to school season, so in the latest episode of “Last Week Tonight,” host John Oliver set his sights on the political phenomenon that is charter schools.

These publicly funded schools are privately run and receive money based on how many students they have enrolled. They’ve become increasingly popular among politicians (from both political parties), and many are run by celebrities–even Pitbull has one! Yet, despite their popularity, there have been countless examples of charter schools being run in horribly unprofessional ways.

Principals have been found guilty of embezzlement, and in the case of Philadelphia’s Harambee Institute (yes, just like the name of the slain gorilla, but spelled differently), the school’s cafeteria was turned into an illegal, unlicensed nightclub after school hours.

Oliver quipped, “A nightclub in an elementary school is a recipe for disaster, because those are the two most vomit-prone populations in the world. They must have had to Febreeze the sh*t out of that place!”

Fact is, in Philadelphia alone, at least ten executives or top administrators at charter schools have pleaded guilty in the last decade to charges like fraud, obstruction of justice and misusing funds. In reference to Pennsylvania’s charter laws Oliver says,

It is not like having the worst ‘something’ is new for Pennsylvania. Remember, this is the state that has the worst football fans, the worst bell, and the worst regional delicacy. Yes. If I wanted Cheez Whiz on my steak sandwich, I’d eat at Kiddie Cafeteria, the restaurant run by six-year-olds.

But Ohio doesn’t have a great track record either when it comes to charter schools. Oliver critiqued Gov. John Kasich 2009 comparing the need for choice in schooling options to the need for a competitive market for “pizza shops,” saying “That doesn’t work on any level.”

Oliver concluded,

The problem with letting the free market decide when it comes to kids is that kids change faster than the market,” Oliver said. “And, by the time it’s obvious a school is failing, futures may have been ruined. So, if we are going to treat charter schools like pizza shops, we should monitor them at least as well as we do pizzerias. It’s like the old saying: ‘Give a kid a sh—y pizza, you f— up their day. Treat a kid like a sh—y pizza, you could f— up their entire life.’

Watch the full clip below

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post John Oliver on Why Charter Schools Are Not Like Pizzerias appeared first on Law Street.

Have you ever scrolled though your Instagram feed and stopped on an image of one of the Kardashian/Jenner sisters (yes, it’s ok to admit that you follow one, if not all of them) posing with some new fit tea, hair pill, or waist trainer? Was the photo perhaps missing a clearly visible sponsored content label?

Chances are your answers to both of these questions are yes, which is why the famous celebrity clan has been warned that if they don’t remedy their deceptive advertising practices in a week, a formal complaint will be filed with the FTC.

Even the government is no fan of the Kardashians’ detox tea ads on Instagram https://t.co/YAqyvFxO1s pic.twitter.com/ydRfwxMeaM

— Her Campus (@HerCampus) August 7, 2016

On August 17, Truth in Advertising.org sent the family’s matriarch/mom-ager, Kris Jenner, and 27 companies–including Puma, Calvin Klein, JetSmarter, Fit Tea, LuMee, and Balmain–a letter notifying them about the deceptive marketing campaigns. The nonprofit reviewed accounts for Kim, Khloe, Kourtney, Kylie, and Kendall, and found “a plethora of posts that do not clearly or conspicuously disclose their relationships with the companies being promoted in the posts as is required by federal law.”

TINA.org writes:

We intend to notify the Federal Trade Commission that these individuals and companies are engaged in deceptive marketing campaigns unless, by August 24, 2016, the issues described above are fully corrected by clearly and conspicuously disclosing that all applicable posts – past, present, and future – are paid advertisements or the result of material connections between the Kardashian/Jenner individuals and the companies featured in the posts.

Read TINA.org’s letter to the Kardashian-Jenner family here.

The sisters, who have a combined Instagram following of more than 316 million, reportedly make an upwards of $300,000 per sponsored post. According to TINA.org, youngest sister Kylie had the most problem posts, followed by Kim. Also, Puma, with which Kylie has an endorsement deal, lead all companies in improperly marked paid content with 13 posts.

While the girls have occasionally used tags such as #sp and #spon to mark their sponsored posts, the FTC told Bloomberg the subtle disclaimer isn’t enough. Using the hashtag #ad is okay, but only if it’s at the beginning of a post.

Since receiving the letter, the Kardashian-Jenners have already begun retroactively amending posts to contain #ad at the end. However,  since the number of impressions garnered on a post significantly decreases after the initial posting, this remedy may be a waste of time. On August 24 it will be interesting to see if TINA.org is satisfied with changes, or if the group decides to move forward with filing an official FTC complaint.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Truth in Advertising Org Threatens to Report Kardashian/Jenner Family to FTC appeared first on Law Street.

After suffering through domestic violence accusations, damning photos and text messages, and a restraining order, Amber Heard has made good on her promise and has given away her $7 million divorce settlement with Johnny Depp to charity.

Amber Heard Is Donating All $7 Million Of Her Johnny Depp Divorce Settlement https://t.co/zosgwOYF7h pic.twitter.com/aMX48OIfWM

— Elite Daily (@EliteDaily) August 19, 2016

Heard announced the decision in a statement to Buzzfeed Thursday, saying the divorce with Depp was never about the money and that she hopes the money goes to people “less able to defend themselves.”

According to Buzzfeed, Heard said the large donation “will be divided equally between the ACLU, with a particular focus to stop violence against women, and the Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles, where I have worked as a volunteer for the past 10 years alongside organizations like the Art of Elysium.”

Heard filed for divorce in May, and later obtained a temporary restraining order that alleges Depp hit her during a fight in their Los Angeles apartment that same month. Her allegations looked pretty convincing as she walked into an L.A. courtroom with a bruise on her right cheek below the eye.

Depp, who has stayed relatively silent over the course of the divorce proceedings, has yet to release a statement and is probably under orders from his publicist to avoid the media at all costs. Why? Perhaps because its unclear if his career will recover from the domestic violence scandal. Former fans are still trying to figure out if they can forget forgive his domestic violence allegations and justify spending more money to see him in another “Pirates” sequel or freaky Tim Burton gothic comedy.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Amber Heard Donates $7 Million Divorce Settlement to Charity appeared first on Law Street.

Brendan Dassey’s conviction was recently overturned. But Dassey, from the documentary series “Making a Murderer,” and his family were told to remain silent ahead of the new season of the show. The producers don’t want to risk information getting out beforehand, but also don’t want to risk Dassey’s release from prison in any way. His family and supporters are afraid he might have to spend several more years behind bars in case the state appeals the verdict and want him to keep a low profile. According to Express Online, his lawyers worry that the state will appeal and keep Dassey in jail during the whole process.

After the show aired, a lot of people became outraged over the seemingly unconstitutional way the case was handled. Many signed different petitions to free Steven Avery and Dassey and started campaigning for their exoneration. According to one of the most active campaigners, Shaun Attwood, the state and the original prosecutor will do everything they can to keep Brendan Dassey behind bars. He said:

This is not only a groundbreaking case in terms of the way it was handled but in the way the justice system is playing out. This is the first time a documentary like this has been able to expose major failings in the justice system.

He added, “The last thing they want is to destroy all of the hard work they’ve done by talking about it publicly.”

The series “Making a Murderer” that depicted the conviction of Dassey and his uncle, Avery, for the rape and murder of Teresa Halbach in October 2005 became incredibly popular last year. Many viewers believed it was clear early on that police officers persuaded Dassey, then only 16, to confess in exchange for prosecutorial leniency. The series showed how they basically put words in Dassey’s mouth during the interrogation and a passive Dassey afterwards asked if he could go back to class, not realizing the gravity of what he had just admitted to.

On Friday, Dassey’s murder conviction was overturned after a U.S. federal court found his interrogation to be unconstitutional. After spending over 10 years in prison he and his family, as well as outside supporters who learned about the case through the TV show, were jubilant.

ICYMI: The conviction of Brendan Dassey, a man who appeared in @MakingAMurderer, has been overturned pic.twitter.com/OwHpFkOXlj

— HLN (@HLNTV) August 15, 2016

But reactions have been mixed. TV anchor Nancy Grace, who originally covered the story, aired her anger and disgust with the verdict in an interview with a lawyer and the original prosecutor in the case. Grace stated that she still believes Dassey is guilty and that his conviction should stand. She also claimed that Dassey’s IQ of 70 is completely normal even though experts have called it “extremely low.”

Teresa Halbach’s former teacher told People that she was shocked to hear about Dassey’s overturned conviction. She said, “Everyone feels for Teresa […] She is the victim here.” She said she doesn’t think a TV show should be able to overturn things and that “they were tried and they were convicted, and end of story.”

At the same time, Steven Avery’s former lawyers Dean Strang and Jerry Buting were very pleased with the outcome. They said in a statement obtained by People:

Brendan’s statements were not only involuntary, they were completely contradicted by the lack of physical evidence. This shows the folly of coercing a statement from a vulnerable target. It also vindicates what we have said for years: that law enforcement in the Teresa Halbach investigation was willing to go to extreme lengths to convict Steven Avery, the only person they seriously considered to be a suspect.

State prosecutors now have 90 days to decide whether to appeal the verdict or release Brendan Dassey. Avery’s case is unchanged for now.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Brendan Dassey from “Making a Murderer” Told To Remain Silent appeared first on Law Street.

Sports, particularly the Olympic Games, have the potential to give us some awesome gifs. Remember McKayla Maroney’s not impressed face from four years ago?

Or this synchronized swimmer rising from the water in a particularly derptastic fashion?

Or Ashley Wagner’s “bullshit” gif from the most recent winter games?

Well unfortunately we won’t have access to as many awesome gif moments from this year’s Rio Olympic Games. Per the International Olympic Committee (IOC):

Internet and Mobile Platforms Notwithstanding any other applicable limitation included in these NARs, Olympic Material must not be broadcast on interactive services such as ‘news active’ or ‘sports active’ or any other related Video on Demand services, which would allow the viewer to make a viewing choice within a channel and to thereby view Olympic Material at times and programs other than when broadcast as part of a News Program as set out in Clause 1 above. Additionally, the use of Olympic Material transformed into graphic animated formats such as animated GIFs (i.e. GIFV), GFY, WebM, or short video formats such as Vines and others, is expressly prohibited.

Rules for people attending the games include:

Video or audio content taken from within Olympic venues … must only be for personal use and must not be uploaded or shared on any website, blog, social media page, photo or video-sharing sites, or other mobile application. Broadcasting images via live-streaming applications (e.g. Periscope, Meerkat) is prohibited inside Olympic venues.

This announcement shouldn’t really come as a surprise, given that the IOC hinted at strict prohibitions in May when it disclosed that only its rights holders could share Olympic content. NBC, and its international counterparts who also have the rights to Olympic footage have paid hefty prices for those rights, and the IOC understandably wants to protect them. However, it does appear that NBC is still going to be making its own gifs, so all is not lost.

But a lot of people are wondering if the prohibition on gifs will even be possible, or wise. While it’s one thing to ban media organizations from making gifs or short videos, it’s going to be a lot harder to prevent the internet as a whole from doing so. Remember that time that Beyonce wanted photos taken down from the internet?

So, all gif hope isn’t lost, but it’s doubtful we’ll have quite as many as in 2012 or 2014.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bad News: We Won’t Have Many Olympic Gifs appeared first on Law Street.

In June, “Star Trek” actor Anton Yelchin was killed at age 27 after his Jeep Grand Cherokee rolled away from where it was parked and pinned him against a gate in his driveway. In the media scrutiny that followed, some major issues surrounding the car model and its gear shift became widely publicized, including the recall of nearly 1.1 million vehicles that included Yelchin’s model. On Tuesday, the actor’s parents announced that they would be filing a lawsuit against Fiat Chrysler, the parent company of Jeep, for the wrongful death of their son.

In an emotional press conference on Tuesday, Victor and Irina Yelchin announced the lawsuit, with the actor’s mother explaining that she hoped that his death “might save another life.” Their lawyer, Gary Dordick, blamed the carmakers for the accident, saying the company “failed to take action to protect the families that trusted them to make their vehicle safe. The safety recall was way too little and way too late.”

Yelchin’s death is attributed to the monostable shifter found in the car model and others made by the company. The design and operation of the shifter is reportedly not intuitive for drivers, many of whom mistakenly believe that their cars are in “park” when they are not. This issue has allegedly caused nearly 300 accidents and 68 injuries, leading the company to issue a recall this past April. The shifters were also investigated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which stated in its report that the “absence of an additional mechanism to mitigate the effects of driver error…constitutes a defect presenting a risk to motor vehicle safety.”

The suit isn’t the first example of legal action taken against the company since Yelchin’s death. In late June, a class action lawsuit for $5 million was filed against the company by drivers of vehicles with the same monostable shifter found in Yelchin’s vehicle. In April, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration released the results of their investigation into the shifters, in which they reported that drivers often exited their vehicles after mistakenly believing them to be in the “Park” position. This defect, the report stated, “constitutes a defect presenting a risk to motor vehicle safety.”

Perhaps one of the most tragic parts of this story? The fact that the recall notice was mailed to Yelchin’s house just one week after his death. The notice informed drivers that the software in the cars could be updated to add an “Auto Park” feature which would reduce the risk of rollaway vehicles. The fact that the actor’s death could possibly have been prevented is sure to be a large part of the Yelchins’ case against the company.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Anton Yelchin’s Parents to Sue Fiat Chrysler for Their Son’s Death appeared first on Law Street.

More than 50 retired professional wrestlers are suing the WWE and its CEO, Vince McMahon, in hopes of proving the repeated head injuries they sustained while in the ring are linked to CTE, the progressive degenerative brain disease that has been commonly found in athletes who have experienced repeated concussions.

The 214-page lawsuit filed Monday in the U.S. District Court of Connecticut claims that the company is responsible for their long-term neurological damage and alleges that the WWE “fraudulently misrepresented and concealed” the dangers of these injuries.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 53 Wrestlers Sue WWE For Concealing the Dangers of CTE appeared first on Law Street.

Third Eye Blind, mostly known for ’90s hits like “Semi-Charmed Life,” played a charity show last night at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland, Ohio. It was hosted by the Recording Industry Association of America and AT&T, and mostly included RNC attendees and guests. But the members of Third Eye Blind may have been the only ones having fun at the concert–the band spent most of their performance trolling the RNC attendees in the audience.

The band released this statement, outlining how exactly they came to play the event in the first place:

About last night: https://t.co/LIOhIIzGqg pic.twitter.com/nqPKeSYepj

— Third Eye Blind (@ThirdEyeBlind) July 20, 2016

Stephen Jenkins, the band’s singer, kept asking the crowd to “raise your hands if you believe in science”–a clear shot at the GOP’s continued refusal to address climate change. Apparently many of the audience members booed the “science” question. The band also refused to play their hits, instead playing their more obscure songs.

The one big hit they did play was “Jumper,” which was written about one of Jenkins’ friends who was gay and committed suicide. Jenkins introduced the song by talking about acceptance and tolerance, and mentioning his gay cousins.

.@ThirdEyeBlind Epically Trolled People At The Republican Convention #RNCinCLEhttps://t.co/0UxH3vsLIwpic.twitter.com/x9KheBC25x

— BuzzFeed News (@BuzzFeedNews) July 20, 2016

Onlookers also tweeted about other funny and tongue-in-cheek moves on the band’s part: 

apparently @ThirdEyeBlind also played their song “Non-Dairy Creamer,” which has these tongue-in-cheek lyrics pic.twitter.com/PBk3VYnMOV

— Rachel Zarrell (@rachelzarrell) July 20, 2016

The band had previously refused to play at the 2012 Republican convention after being asked, and Jenkins explained their logic in an article on the Huffington Post, saying: 

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Third Eye Blind Expertly Trolls RNC Attendees appeared first on Law Street.

The battle between Taylor Swift and Kanye West over his song “Famous” may become a legal one thanks to newly-leaked footage from West’s wife, Kim Kardashian West.

After Kim accused Swift of continuing to “play the victim” on Sunday night’s episode of “Keeping Up With The Kardashians,” she backed up her claims by finally leaking the videotaped telephone conversation between Kanye and Swift on Snapchat. The footage proves that not only did the “Bad Blood” singer  know about the song before its release, but she approved of its lyrics. However, Kimye may want to hold off celebrating, because that recorded phone call may actually be illegal.

But before we get to all that I’ll do my best to catch up all of you who are struggling to follow along because either (a) you don’t religiously follow all of the Kardashians on social media like me or (b) you somehow forgot about that awkward MTV VMAs seven years ago. Here’s a timeline of the drama:

• September 13, 2009: Feud begins after Kanye grabs the mic from Taylor during her MTV VMA acceptance speech for Best Female Video, declaring Beyonce’s “Single Ladies” should have won.
• 2010-2014: Kanye apologizes, then takes back said apology.
• August 30, 2015: Kanye apologizes for real this time after Taylor presents Kanye with Video Vanguard Award at the VMAs.
• February 11, 2016: Kanye releases a song titled “Famous,” in which he referenced the feud rapping: “For all my Southside n***as that know me best/I feel like me and Taylor might still have sex/Why? I made that bitch famous.”
• February 15, 2016: Taylor throws shade at Kanye during her Grammy acceptance speech for Album of the Year saying: “As the first woman to win Album of the Year at the Grammys twice, I want to say to all the young women out there: there are going to be people along the way who will try to undercut your success or take credit for your accomplishments or your fame.”
• February 17, 2016: Kanye flips out on Taylor’s “fake ass” backstage at SNL.
• June 16, 2016: Kim defends her husband in an interview for GQ, revealing that Kanye called Taylor before the song’s release and discussed it with her. Taylor “thought it was funny” and “gave her blessing.” Kim also claims the whole conversation is on tape thanks to Kanye’s videographers. Yet, in the same article a spokesperson for Taylor denies West’s claim, stating Kanye only called to ask Taylor to promote the song on her Twitter account. Taylor’s lawyers also apparently sent a letter demanding they destroy the footage.
• June 24, 2016: Kanye debuts the music video for “Famous,” which consists of a nude Kim and Kanye in bed, surrounded by nude replicas of several celebrities–with a topless Taylor on Kanye’s right.
• July 17, 2016: After venting about the drama on KUWTK, Kim takes to snapchat to release the footage of Kanye and Taylor’s phone conversation, proving the pair was telling the truth. #KimExposedTaylorParty starts trending on Twitter. Here’s the footage:

PART 1: Kanye calling Taylor Swift to tell her about the #FAMOUS lyrics. Courtesy of KKW. pic.twitter.com/TIiqxxzLUh

— TeamKanyeDaily (@TeamKanyeDaily) July 18, 2016

PART 2: Taylor agreeing to tell the media she was in on the #FAMOUS lyrics from the beginning. : KKW. pic.twitter.com/PbXUnGreas

— TeamKanyeDaily (@TeamKanyeDaily) July 18, 2016

• July 18, 2016: Swift responded to the videos with this note on Twitter:

That moment when Kanye West secretly records your phone call, then Kim posts it on the Internet. pic.twitter.com/4GJqdyykQu

— Taylor Swift (@taylorswift13) July 18, 2016

Now that you’re all caught up, here’s where the legality of the footage comes in. Did Kanye break the law by filming his conversation with Swift? It depends on the state.

Federal law “permits recording telephone calls and in-person conversations with the consent of at least one of the parties.” This is commonly referred to as “one-party consent.” However, some states require all parties to consent to the recording. These states include: California, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington.

This is where it gets tricky. It’s unclear if Kim and Kanye were in a New York (a one-party consent state) or California (a two-party consent state,) or if Taylor was in Tennessee (a one-party consent state) or somewhere else altogether. In the video Kanye references a Nashville number, but they could simply be talking about an area code.

If two parties are in two different states, the laws in either state, or even federal law, may apply–and California law is strict. Under the California Penal Code, a first-offense for illegal telephone recording can carry a fine of $2,500 or even imprisonment for up to one year.

The California Supreme Court also established a precedent in 2006, ruling in Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc. that if a caller in a one-party state records a conversation with someone in California, that one-party state caller is subject to the stricter of the laws and must have consent from all callers.

So in other words, it’s unclear whether or not Kanye could face face legal charges for recording the call, or if Kim could be on the hook for distributing the recording. It will be interesting to see whether or not Taylor’s team chooses to pursue legal action.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Did Kanye Break the Law By Recording Taylor Swift’s Phone Call? appeared first on Law Street.

John Oliver took the opportunity on Independence Day to release a little web special, with a reminder to Americans about the original “Brexit.” It has now been 240 years since Americans kicked the Britons out, and he wanted us to think about what could have been. According to Oliver, this is a sampling of what you guys miss out on by not being British:

• The accent–the “beautiful vowel sounds” of the British could have been yours, Oliver points out, before describing what he thinks the American accent sounds like. (Spoiler alert: it’s not flattering.)
• Fashion–the little black bowler hats are also something that Americans probably envy the Brits.
• The cuisine, like minced meat pie–the British delicacy that embodies the British people. According to Oliver, they’re hard and crusty on the outside, they can give you the impression of composure, but on the inside it’s just a hot f***ing mess.

Finally, Oliver concluded by pointing out the very significant difference between the American sunny optimism and the British cloudy pessimism. It is a well-known fact and cultural difference that Americans have a hard-to-break confidence. Brits on the other hand would “never make the mistake of developing self-esteem” since they know they could never be as good as the Queen. Oliver even took a shot at the Queen, dubbing her “an elderly woman who frowns for a living.”

Generously, Oliver admitted that America might be better off the way it is, after all.

The show is having a summer break but will be back on July 24. Watch the clip below:

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post John Oliver: What are Americans Missing out on by Not Being British? appeared first on Law Street.

You know the feeling when you’re witnessing something amazing, and it makes you a little sad that no one else is there to see it? There’s a television equivalent to that–when you’re watching an amazing show with disappointing ratings and you hope against hope that the sponsors and executives will continue supporting it for the art’s own sake. In another context, you might feel a little proud to be enjoying something that the general public hasn’t caught onto yet–but you can’t because you’re too worried that the program won’t last long enough (see: any good show on the CW.) That’s exactly how I feel watching “Full Frontal with Samantha Bee.”

If you don’t remember her, she was a correspondent on “The Daily Show” who did hilarious exposés and interviews ranging from abortion rights and labor laws to women and gays in the military. “Full Frontal” is her standalone late night show, and unbeknownst to seemingly everyone, it’s the best late night talk show for political coverage. While the primaries and the general seem exhausting, it’s always nice to have a voice of sanity you can tune into every week, and if you haven’t tried “Full Frontal,” you’re really missing out.

What makes Samantha Bee’s program head and shoulders over the others? Shall I compare her to the other hosts?–after all, she art more lovely and less temperate. There are of course the three Jameses: Fallon, Kimmel, and Corden are all goofy and fun, but they’re rarely political. Seth Meyers has short political segments called “a closer look,” which are usually informative but full of very flat jokes. Colbert’s new show has some highlights, but the tone is generally very silly. He’s a gifted live interviewer, but the show’s other material can feel repetitive. John Oliver has great long form excerpts, but they’re not consistently about politics, and aren’t usually about current news. Bill Maher is consistently political and keeps up with the election, but is often too abrasive and acerbic, and can alienate those who aren’t on the far-left. I’ve got to be honest, I haven’t seen much of Trevor Noah. I asked some friends who like the show what he’s like, and I heard that he is “dreamy” and has “the cutest accent.” So I guess he’s got that going for him.

Samantha Bee manages to mix together all the best elements of the other hosts to create the best late-night refuge from political craziness. Her best segments teach you something new while making you laugh–and include a call to action to right wrongs. Plus, none of the aforementioned guys have jackets anywhere near as cool as Sam’s.

After working with Jon Stewart so closely, it’s no surprise that she has a well-developed knack for making jokes about topics like mass shootings and rapes without seeming callous or mean-spirited. The delicate balance between serious punditry and side-splitting commentary can be treacherous, but Bee’s explanation videos manage both perfectly. Some highlights include the origins of the religious right movement, abortion restriction in Texas, and explaining what the hell superdelegates are. Just about any video produced for her show will teach you something new, and arm you with funny one-liners about the election perfect for any office party schmoozing.

For a glimpse at how she unflinchingly tackles a subject matter as taboo as rape, check out this video of her argument for passing MJIA, a bill regarding military sexual assault.

She also has a segment where she interviews a group of people to better understand them–and while it’s not always comfortable, it’s always hilarious. Her ‘unironic’ interview with Trump supporters and her meeting with the “Bernie bros,” are great examples.

On the “Colbert Report,” Colbert’s character was a staunch conservative, and his opinions made him interesting to watch. Even if his opinions weren’t real, they provided satirical outlets for his writers’ actual opinions.  Samantha Bee doesn’t pretend to be an impartial observer–she’s got strong opinions, and that’s exactly why her show is interesting. She has an angle, and she owns it. It’s time for more people to tune in.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Samantha Bee Deserves More Buzz appeared first on Law Street.

A judge has ordered “The Wolf of Wall Street,” aka Leonardo DiCaprio, to testify in a lawsuit against the filmmakers of the 2013 movie. You might think it would be flattering to have a character featured in a movie with one of the biggest stars of today based off of you, but businessman Andrew Greene claims that it portrayed him as a “criminal, a drug user and a degenerate.” Now he wants $25 million in damages.

@BBCWorld @LeoDiCaprio
Is he going to be questioned about The Titanic sinking as well?

— Paul_Ed (@eddo75) June 17, 2016

Greene is the former executive at the brokerage firm the film depicts, Stratton Oakmont, portrayed through the character Nicky “Rugrat” Koskoff, the guy with the bad toupee. DiCaprio plays the main character, Jordan Belfort, who founded Stratton Oakmont and made a fortune by defrauding investors.

Greene initially sued Paramount Pictures for over $50 million in 2014. Paramount claims that Koskoff, played by P.J. Byrne, is a mashup of multiple people and that Greene is just one of them. The hairpiece played a role in many jokes in both the movie and in Belfort’s memoir that the movie is based on.

Oh, it's not even about Jordan Belfort. It's about how Nicky Koskoff was portrayed to look bad in the film lol. pic.twitter.com/7BDABHMzRF

— Tea Lizard (@brettSTYX) June 17, 2016

The judge rejected Greene’s claims of defamation, but allowed him to change his suit to malicious libel. The plaintiff’s side wanted DiCaprio to testify since he played a big part in the production of the movie, but he has so far been “too busy.” The defendants claim that the accounts of director Martin Scorsese and screenwriter Terence Winter should be enough. They have also argued that DiCaprio didn’t have any means of controlling other actors’ performances.

.@LeoDiCaprio is being asked to testify against the creators of Wolf of Wall Street in a defamation case. #9Today https://t.co/98ZIaOo6OA

— The Today Show (@TheTodayShow) June 15, 2016

But the judge sided with the plaintiffs, and has now ordered DiCaprio to court. However, the orders are vague, stating he should show up for his testimony “at a reasonable time and place agreed to by the parties.”

The real “Wolf of Wall Street,” Jordan Belfort, spent 22 months in prison for money laundering and fraud. He went on to write his biography and is still paying off debts to the victims of his financial schemes.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Leonardo DiCaprio to Testify in Lawsuit Against “The Wolf of Wall Street” appeared first on Law Street.

Can posting spoilers about your favorite show be considered a form of copyright infringement? AMC, the network that airs the massively popular show “The Walking Dead,” seems to think so, based on recent threats made by its legal team toward a fan community.

Moderators of the Facebook page “The Spoiling Dead Fans” posted Sunday that they had received a cease-and-desist letter from AMC threatening legal action against the community for speculating about a character death from last season’s finale (possible spoilers below, if you’re not caught up on the show).

It’s unclear on what legal grounds the network can threaten the lawsuit–the group says that AMC is claiming “copyright infringement,” under the belief that the group’s leaders received “trade secret information” regarding the next season that they were sharing with their followers. The members deny this, and claims that they were simply speculating about the cliffhanger.

“The Spoiling Dead Fans” is an online community that gives fans a forum to discuss the show. Fans can also submit photos of the show’s filming in Georgia, allowing them to further speculate about possible plot points. The page’s creators, however, maintain that all of the photos taken on their site are obtained legally, without any trespassing or law-breaking.

The page, which has a following of almost 370,000 fans, has been targeted previously by AMC for copyright infringement: posts have allegedly been taken down, and the page has been blocked by Facebook after being reported under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The moderators also claim that the network has been trying to intimidate members by threatening arrest “among other questionable acts.”  However, this cease and desist letter has taken the network’s threats to the next level and forced the group to take down the posts in question for fear of legal action.

“The Walking Dead” is easily one of the most popular shows on TV at the moment, making it somewhat understandable that major plot points are being kept under lock and key as if they are classified documents. However, if speculating about a show can now get people in legal trouble and result in the alleged harassment of a fan community, then AMC has definitely taken this way too far.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post “The Walking Dead” Fan Page Threatened with Lawsuit for Spoilers appeared first on Law Street.

It was a very dark weekend for Orlando, Florida. On Friday night, singer Christina Grimmie was shot to death following her concert, after which the gunman took his own life. Police have now identified the man as Kevin James Loibl, 27, but his motives are still unknown.

Grimmie opened for the band Before You Exit at the Plaza Live in Orlando, and then spent some time meeting fans and writing autographs. That’s when Loibl seized his opportunity and shot her with a small handgun. Grimmie’s brother immediately rushed to tackle the shooter to the ground, which prevented more people from being harmed, said the Orlando police in a statement. Loibl then shot himself. Grimmie later died in the hospital from her injuries.

OPD can confirm 27 year old Kevin James Loibl, suspect who shot Christina Grimmie, is from St Petersburg, FL pic.twitter.com/iN6RUi3VRx

— Orlando Police (@OrlandoPolice) June 11, 2016

Why Loibl shot Grimmie is still a mystery and the police have been searching his computer and phone to try and determine whether they knew each other, or if he had any other reason to want her dead. What we do know is that he lived in St. Petersburg, but traveled the two hours to Orlando carrying two handguns and a big hunting knife, just to kill Grimmie, and was planning on returning home afterwards. Reports say he went by public transportation, and that he had no previous criminal record.

This is a note posted to the door of Loibl’s family home in St. Petersburg:

Here is the note on the door of home where Kevin Loibl lived. #ChristinaGrimmie @FOX13News pic.twitter.com/dMDqtfELcb

— Evan Lambert FOX 13 (@EvanLambertTV) June 11, 2016

Twenty-two-year-old Grimmie had her breakthrough in the sixth season of the “Voice” that aired on NBC two years ago. She was coached by Maroon 5’s Adam Levine, who has offered to pay for the funeral. Social media was filled with tributes to Grimmie by Levine and others in the music industry over the weekend.

Behati and I are absolutely devastated and heartbroken by Christina Grimmie’s death. Our hearts go out to her family pic.twitter.com/y4OMkm0uXu

— Adam Levine (@adamlevine) June 11, 2016

Before You Exit, the band she was touring with, tweeted this message:

Today we lost an angel, sister, and a beloved friend. #RipChristina pic.twitter.com/EkwTKsaLFr

— Before You Exit⇞ (@beforeyouexit) June 11, 2016

NBC’s Carson Daly is the host of “The Voice” and told TODAY: “Christina really was, she was special. She would walk in a room and have an infectious laugh. She was determined; she was confident. But she was so incredibly sweet.”

My heart is absolutely broken. I miss you Christina pic.twitter.com/KWGwZZlj4t

— Selena Gomez (@selenagomez) June 11, 2016

Grimmie was a personal friend of Selena Gomez and her family. Gomez’s stepdad, who was also Grimmie’s manager, started a fundraiser to help Grimmie’s family out and has so far raised over $120,000.

Grimmie’s killing was followed early Sunday morning by the deadliest mass shooting in American history at a gay nightclub, also in Orlando.

See Law Street’s piece on whether mass shootings could actually lead to looser gun laws.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Police Identifies Gunman Who Killed Singer Christina Grimmie appeared first on Law Street.

A woman named Titi Pierce from Warner Robins, Georgia, is suing Warner Brothers over a segment Ellen DeGeneres did on her popular daytime talkshow. Pierce is a Robins Air Force Base engineer and a real-estate agent. On her February 22 show, DeGeneres showed footage of one of Pierce’s real estate signs and mispronounced her name as “titty Pierce.” As a result of the mocking, Pierce has allegedly received threats and harassment, and filed a lawsuit in District Court on Thursday.

Pierce’s name is actually pronounced “tee-tee” and is originally a Nigerian name meaning “flower.” However, DeGeneres made a series of breast-related jokes about Pierce’s name in a segment about funny signs. DeGeneres also contrasted Pierce’s real estate sign with another sign advertising the “Nipple Convalescent Home,” stating: Titty Pierce, sounds like she might have spent some time in that nipple home, I don’t know.”

The segment was broadcast in February, and then shown again on a rerun in April. It was also posted to the show’s Facebook page.

Pierce’s lawsuit claims that DeGeneres’s show showed her phone number when the sign was displayed (although it was blurred out on the version that was posted to Facebook.) As a result of the show, Pierce claims to have received a number of harassing and mocking phone calls. In response her office posted on Facebook:

Loving that our own Titi Pierce of CBRF (Coldwell Banker Robbins & Free) was on the Ellen DeGeneres show, but wish it was because they knew how fabulous and classy Titi is and not to poke fun. We love you Titi and are proud to have you in the CBRF Family.

Pierce’s lawsuit alleges that DeGeneres “defamed her, invaded her privacy and intentionally inflicted distress.” Pierce is asking for damages, and is aiming to keep the segment from airing again.

Check out the clip in question below (although note that the number has been now blurred out):

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Warner Brothers Sued After Ellen DeGeneres Mocks Woman’s Name appeared first on Law Street.

Even though “American Idol” is officially over, the show’s legal drama continues.

On Thursday the show’s producer filed a $6 million lawsuit against Season 11 winner Phillip Phillips for an alleged breach of contract.

According to Billboard, 19 Entertainment, which filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy earlier this year, alleges that Phillips “has been holding onto as much as $1 million of 19’s money and that he should also be forced to pay at least $5 million for repudiating and breaching various agreement.”

This isn’t the only pending legal dispute between the pair. In 2015, Phillips filed a petition with the California Labor Commissioner seeking to void his recording, management, and merchandising deals with the company, which he called “oppressive, fatally conflicted.”

Phillip alleges that the contract he signed as a precursor to his success excluded him from his album’s crucial decision-making process and “manipulated” him into performing for free for “Idol” sponsors, which he says is in violation of California’s Talent Agencies Act.

He also claims that 19 Entertainment hired a manager for his first two albums–2012’s “The World from the Side of the Moon” and 2014’s “Behind the Light”–who earned more royalties than he did.

The petition, which was put on pause as a result of 19 Entertainment’s bankruptcy filing, could have huge implications for these reality competition shows if contestants forgo signing contracts in lieu of Phillips’ pending litigation.

This very well may have been the reasoning for 19 Entertainment going on the offensive against Phillips.

According to The Hollywood Reporter, the complaint claims that Phillips has been holding onto somewhere between $850,000 and $1 million in “anticipation” that his agreements (which include a recording and publishing deal) would be voided. The complaint adds:

Phillips has refused and insists that he will continue to refuse to perform pursuant to the Agreements, thereby causing Plaintiffs additional damages. The amount of the additional damages from these continuing breaches is not presently calculable with precision but will be presented at the time of trial and will exceed $5,000,000.

Phillips’ attorney Howard King isn’t convinced, and equated 19’s suit to a killer seeking mercy from a victim’s family member. King told the Hollywood Reporter,

19’s new complaint is a blatant attempt to evade California’s jurisdiction and thwart its fundamental public policies crafted to protect artists. 19 cannot murder its parents, then seek mercy as an orphan.

It’s unclear when Phillips’ petition to void his contract will finally resume.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “American Idol” Producer Sues Season 11 Winner Phillip Phillips For $6 Million appeared first on Law Street.

Actress Amber Heard has filed for divorce from her husband Johnny Depp, and on Friday a judge granted her a temporary restraining order. Heard claims that Depp has been abusive to her at least three times over the last six months, and presented a photo of her bruised face after an alleged altercation with Depp on May 21.

Amber Heard has filed for a domestic violence restraining order against Johnny Depp. https://t.co/N2K3EJiqcxpic.twitter.com/yTCX4nr68x

— E! News (@enews) May 27, 2016

Heard has said that Depp threw an iPhone in her face, causing the bruise. She also claims that he broke things in their apartment, verbally accosted her, and pulled her hair.

Heard stated:

During the entirety of our relationship, Johnny has been verbally and physically abusive to me. Johnny has had a long-held and widely-acknowledged public and private history of drug and alcohol abuse…He has a short fuse.

…it doesn’t matter if someone cheats, or if someone is alleged to be violent. In California, if you want a divorce, you get a divorce. You don’t have to prove that one side was bad or that somebody did something wrong.

#ImWithAmber – we live in a world where victims are encouraged to speak out but get labelled a liar when they finally do & it needs to stop.

— jess (@jessshawXx) May 27, 2016

I’m in full support of people printing up #ImWithAmber stickers and putting them on Alice in Wonderland posters at theaters

— Ashley Lynch (@ashleylynch) May 27, 2016

the world wonders why women don’t speak out on domestic violence then denigrate a women when she does. #ImWithAmber #WeStandWithAmber

— onnalise (@lovelyforests) May 27, 2016

Because her sexuality (or her friends’!!) should have NOTHING to do with this. #ImWithAmber#WeStandWithAmberpic.twitter.com/IGk1GaofKE

— Isabel #ImwithAmber (@supernovaclexa) May 27, 2016

NO ONE DESERVE THIS #WeAreWithYouAmberHeard#WeStandWithAmberpic.twitter.com/l6gbXmAd50

— luiza (@bellatrirx) May 27, 2016

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Judge Grants Amber Heard’s Restraining Order Against Johnny Depp appeared first on Law Street.

The drama between Hulk Hogan and Gawker continues after news broke Wednesday that Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiel secretly bankrolled Hogan’s legal bills for his lawsuit against the site.

On Monday, the New York Times reported that there may be some validity to the conspiracy theories speculating that the former WWE star had a financial backer funding his costly three-year legal battle with the gossip news site.

Then on Tuesday, the rumors quickly turned into reality when Forbes reporters Ryan Mac and Matt Drange claimed to have uncovered the financial backer’s identity. In an article published Tuesday night the pair wrote:

According to people familiar with the situation who agreed to speak on condition of anonymity, Thiel, a cofounder and partner at Founders Fund, has played a lead role in bankrolling the cases Terry Bollea, a.k.a. Hogan, brought against New York-based Gawker. Hogan is being represented by Charles Harder, a prominent Los Angeles-based lawyer. A spokesperson for Thiel declined to comment.

Hogan sued Gawker after the gossip blog published a portion of Hogan’s leaked sex tape with Heather Cole, who at the time was married to Hogan’s best friend, radio personality Bubba “the Love Sponge” Clem. In late March, Hogan was awarded $140 million in damages.

According to the Times,

Questions about the independence of Mr. Bollea, who never mentioned a third-party backer, first emerged when his lawyer removed a claim from his complaint that had the effect of eliminating Gawker’s insurance company from the case. That struck many legal observers as odd, given that most lawyers seeking large payouts want to include claims that are insured against because doing so increases the chances of a settlement.

If Thiel is the one financing Hogan’s legal bills, it would make some sense. Thiel, who is gay, has been outspoken about his hate for Gawker ever since the site crossed ethical boundaries when it tried to out him in a piece titled “Peter Thiel is totally gay, people.”

As it stands there’s still a lot we don’t know about the pair’s potential partnership. For example, is Thiel Hogan’s only backer? How did they become involved with one another? Will Hogan pay Thiel back if he wins? After all, it is not illegal for a third party to fund someone’s legal bills. In fact, this arrangement is not at all uncommon, and often happens when the third party has an ulterior motive.

Since Hogan’s case ended, Gawker has been hit with several new lawsuits filed by Hogan’s lawyer, Charles Harder, that target certain writers, and on Wednesday a judge denied Gawker’s motion for a new trial in the Hulk Hogan case.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tech Billionaire Secretly Funded Hulk Hogan’s Lawsuit Against Gawker appeared first on Law Street.

In an interview on Sunday, actor Elijah Wood claimed that Hollywood has a pedophilia crisis. He said that the business has a history of scandals and abuse, and that such abuse is probably still happening among Hollywood’s elite. However, he later pointed out that he does not have any firsthand experience with it.

Fortunately for Wood, he was protected by his parents when he broke onto the scene as a child, but not everyone is as lucky. Wood stated:

If you’re innocent, you have very little knowledge of the world and you want to succeed. People with parasitic interests will see you as their prey. What upsets me about these situations is that the victims can’t speak as loudly as the people in power.

Elijah Wood: 'Hollywood in the grip of child abuse scandal similar to Jimmy Savile' https://t.co/sQD7SaIuVn pic.twitter.com/QZA4gNVeR2

— The Telegraph (@Telegraph) May 23, 2016

In 2013, actor Corey Feldman released a book detailing how he and Corey Haim were repeatedly sexually abused during their careers as child actors in the 80s, and made to believe it was normal. He said that the number one problem in Hollywood is, and always will be, pedophilia.

Elijah Wood’s comments come only a few weeks after Woody Allen’s son Ronan Farrow wrote a piece published in the Hollywood Reporter about his father and the danger of not asking uncomfortable questions. His sister Dylan Farrow has accused their father of sexual abuse and has not received much public support. But big-time screen actors and media personalities keep working with Allen, seemingly looking the other way.

Sexual assault allegations against Woody Allen were not completely swept under the red carpet in Cannes this time. https://t.co/6bgsCtydQA

— AJ+ (@ajplus) May 18, 2016

Allen married his  former partner Mia Farrow’s adopted daughter in 1997; she is 35 years younger than him. Allen’s marriage to Soon-Yi Previn was quite the scandal and has led many to believe that the theme of a young woman being courted by a much older man, which frequently has recurred in many of his movies, could be an autobiographical one.

In the reviews of his latest film during the Cannes Film Festival, the storyline was actually criticized and accused of lacking in innovation because it, once again, featured a young woman seduced by an older man. Journalists did finally ask some difficult questions about Allen’s romantic history, and the French comedian who led the opening ceremony of the gala made a very uncomfortable joke when talking about Allen, saying it was “very nice” that he had shot “so many movies in Europe, even if you are not being convicted for rape in the US.” This was reportedly meant to be a reference to Roman Polanski who was accused of rape in California back in 1978, but was still viewed as a hit against Allen.

In recent years more people have spoken up about sexual abuse cases propagated by Hollywood elite. On Tuesday morning, Bill Cosby went to court for an indecent assault case filed against him in December last year, one of a number of accusations against him. But Ronan Farrow’s statement as well as Elijah Wood’s comments about the topic are further reminders that Hollywood should wake up and do more about a traumatizing problem that is rarely spoken about in the open.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Does Hollywood Have a Pedophilia and Sexual Abuse Problem? appeared first on Law Street.

In the latest episode of “Last Week Tonight,” John Oliver went over the problem with scientific studies in the media. He pointed out that if you start a story by claiming “scientists say…” you can give credence to any kind of not-so-true information. According to Oliver, the problem is the amount of information floating around out there masking itself as science, whether it’s actually only tested on five people, based on information that later got misinterpreted, or biased because of who sponsored the study. Or, my personal favorite, only tested on rats instead of people.

Oliver highlighted the fact that many scientists are under a lot of pressure to publish as many studies as possible, in as prestigious of publications as possible, to get more funding to be able to keep doing their jobs. Which means no one really wants to do replication studies because they are less likely to get funding, which in its turn leads to no one confirming the original study to corroborate its results.

As the Brit pointed out, “a lot of bullshit” is out there making us believe pseudo news stories that have been distorted since the press release. Take a look at these grains of gold: women are more open to romance when they are not hungry; a glass of red wine is the equivalent to going to the gym for an hour; or driving when you’re dehydrated is as dangerous as driving drunk (this study was sponsored by Coca Cola).

One notable video clip Oliver showed was from the “Today Show,” with one host saying, “You find the study that sounds best to you, and you go with that.”

And this is precisely what makes people not take science seriously–the idea that you can just pick what you like as easily as you pick which diet to be on. Oliver points out that it’s the same mindset that makes people not believe that climate change is real or that vaccines will give your kid autism. So all in all, always double-check your facts and go to the original source–otherwise you might actually still believe that smelling farts will prevent cancer.

Check out Oliver’s full takedown below:

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post John Oliver Takes on Bad Science in the Media appeared first on Law Street.

Even in death, details into Prince’s larger-than-life persona have been shrouded in mystery.

Prince, 57, was pronounced dead on April 21 after being found unresponsive at his Minneapolis home. An autopsy was conducted, but the coroner has withheld the results for weeks, allowing speculations to flourish. Information from anonymous sources and rumors have pointed to the flu, painkillers, and even AIDS as all being possible causes for the singer’s death.

But while we continue to wonder what caused the notoriously soft-spoken and private artist to die so suddenly, we can turn our attention to the chaos surrounding his multi-million dollar estate.

On Monday, Tyka Nelson, Prince’s sole full sister, and his half siblings headed to court for a probate hearing to begin the long and inevitably messy process of determining how to divide up his assets.

With no living parents, wife, children, or found will, Prince’s estate is up for grabs. Conflicting media reports have estimated it to be worth anywhere between $100-$500 million, and to include thousands of unreleased songs that are almost impossible to put a price tag on.

Monday’s hearing concluded with Bremer Trust, National Association being appointed the temporary special administrator of the estate. As an administrator, the bank will be tasked with valuing Prince’s image, and his monetary assets (including real estate, bank accounts, music royalties, etc.) It will also handle paying off his remaining debts, and hunting for a possible will, if there is one, as well as any unknown potential heirs.

Sadly, the biggest inheritor of the estate could end up being the government.

According to CNBC, “his estate will owe taxes on whatever the IRS and the administrators agree on as its value, and with a federal estate tax rate of 40 percent and a Minnesota tax rate of 16 percent, roughly half the estate could go to the government.” Unfortunately, with proper financial planning, Prince could have significantly reduced this tax bill.

While no one knows exactly what the outcome will end up being, this is a tragically ironic fate for the artist who was notoriously protective over his intellectual property rights and personal life.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Will Happen to Prince’s Estate? appeared first on Law Street.

Comedian Will Ferrell has officially pulled out of a project that would satirize former President Ronald Reagan’s last years in office. The project allegedly features Reagan suffering from dementia while still in office, and Ferrell has received significant criticism for signing on to the project in the first place.

The controversy began after news broke that Ferrell had apparently optioned the comedy, but after the onslaught of criticism, Ferrell made it clear that he wasn’t going to move forward with the project. According to Ferrell’s spokesperson:

The REAGAN script is one of a number of scripts that had been submitted to Will Ferrell which he had considered. While it is by no means a ‘Alzheimer’s comedy’ as has been suggested, Mr. Ferrell is not pursuing this project.

Some of the criticism came from Reagan’s children Patti Davis and Michael Reagan, who stated “Alzheimer’s isn’t a joke” and called the movie cruel. The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation also put out a statement, and the Alzheimer’s Association reportedly said it was “appalled” at the project.

A movie about Reagan’s Alzheimer’s does sound like it could be in bad taste, however the Hollywood Reporter obtained a copy of the script, and reporter Seth Abramovitch stated:

Most of the criticism seems to have come from people who had only read the log line, not the script. THR obtained a copy of Reagan to see what Rosolio intended.

It turns out Reagan is actually a good-natured and well-researched comedy that offers an ‘alternate take’ on seismic events in American history — a direct descendent of 1999’s Dick, in which Kirsten Dunst and Michelle Williams play ditzy teens who unwittingly bring down Richard Nixon.

But it does revolve around the conceit that the 40th president had no knowledge of where he was or what he was doing throughout his entire second term.

Given the outpouring of controversy, it’s doubtful that this project will ever see the light of the day, but we’ll have to see if anyone else in Hollywood is willing to take the risk.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post That Will Ferrell Comedy About Ronald Reagan’s Alzheimer’s Won’t Be Happening appeared first on Law Street.

The hit TV show “Love it or List it” is getting sued for shoddy work, breach of contract, unfair trade practices, and other allegations. Deena Murphy and Timothy Sullivan, who live in Chatham County, North Carolina are suing the home renovations show, which airs on HGTV, as well as the production company Big Coat TV, and the local contractor used for the renovations, Aaron Fitz Construction.

Here’s the premise of the show: the “Love it or List it” team finds a family who is not happy with their home. Then, interior designer Hilary Farr renovates the home according to the family’s needs while a realtor, David Visentin, shows them other houses in the area that fit their specifications. At the end of the episode the family decides whether to “love” their newly renovated home or “list” it because they’re going to live elsewhere.

In the case in question, Murphy and Sullivan were looking to renovate one of their rental properties and move into it with their foster children. They were chosen to be on the show in April 2015. However, they claim that they paid $140,000 to the show to use for the renovations, but the show didn’t give all that money to the contractors. The lawsuit also states:

Instead, Big Coat hired its own subcontractors and supervised their work itself, acting as an unlicensed general contractor, the suit states. The result of this improper conduct was the very kind of substandard work the statutes are designed to protect consumers against. The floors of the Plaintiffs’ house were destroyed by Big Coat’s negligence, and the work that was done was generally performed badly, for the most part using inexpensive, low quality materials.

The plaintiffs also claim that there were holes left in their floors, making it easy for “vermin” to enter the home, and the rest of the floor was damaged beyond repair. They also had complaints about other parts of the show, including that during the “list it” portion of the episode, they were not shown houses by a realtor who was licensed to do business in North Carolina.

It seems like the show’s producers will fight the suit. According to Maria Armstrong, chief executive officer and executive producer of Big Coat Productions/Big Coat TV:

We are aware of the lawsuit. Because this matter involves ongoing litigation, our attorneys have advised us and we feel that making a comment would be inappropriate at this time. However, we do intend to vigorously defend what we consider to be false allegations.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “Love it or List it” Sued by North Carolina Couple appeared first on Law Street.

Trying to get an artist’s latest album nowadays is like playing a game of musical chairs with streaming music services’ subscriptions.

For example if you want Taylor Swift’s 1989 album, forget about trying to stream it on Spotify, you need to head over to Apple Music in order to “Shake it Off.” Now let’s say you then wanted to watch Rihanna’s pre-release of her latest “Kiss it Better” music video or wanted to anxiously stalk Beyoncé’s highly awaited album release, well then you’d need a subscription to her hubby Jay Z’s subscription service Tidal.

The promise of exclusivity from these sites/apps is so powerful in fact, that it has managed to convince many money-conscious millennials to forego their beloved free versions, for monthly paid access.

So when Kanye declared to consumers that his 7th solo studio album would appear exclusively on Tidal, some Yeezy fans shelled out the $9.99 monthly fee no questions asked, and easily doubled Tidal’s subscribers from 1 million to 2.5 million almost overnight.

My album will never never never be on Apple. And it will never be for sale… You can only get it on Tidal.

— KANYE WEST (@kanyewest) February 15, 2016

Tidal quickly became the most downloaded app in the App Store, and Tidal reported that the album was streamed 250 million times in the first 10 days of its release.

The only problem is, “The Life of Pablo” didn’t actually stay exclusive to Tidal. A couple weeks after its debut, the album appeared on Apple Music,  Spotify, and then finally West’s website–and Tidal subscribers took notice.

One California man is so angry that he’s filed a class action lawsuit against both Kanye and Tidal. Justin Baker-Rhett alleges that Tidal used its one month free trial and West’s “exclusive” album to boost sales for the service the he says was “quietly teetering on the brink of collapse.”

“Kanye has the power to send one tweet out into the world and get 2 million people to act on it. This suit is about holding him accountable when he abuses that power,” said Jay Edelson, the founder and CEO of Baker-Rhett’s law firm Edelson PC, in a statement to Rolling Stone.

The lawsuit is asking that Tidal delete the “private information” of both Baker-Rhett and anyone else that joins with the class action suit, claiming that they swindled subscriber’s card information could amount to as much as $84 million for Tidal.

So far neither Tidal, nor West have released public statements addressing the lawsuit’s allegations that they tricked fans into subscribing.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Did Kanye West Trick Fans Into Signing Up for Tidal? appeared first on Law Street.

Take a listen to these two songs. The first is easily recognizable as Led Zeppelin’s classic “Stairway to Heaven,” and has been hailed by fans and critics alike as being one of the greatest rock hits of all time since its 1971 release.

Now listen to song #2. This instrumental is titled “Taurus” and was released in 1968 on the debut album of the lesser known American rock band Spirit. Somewhere near the 45-second mark you may begin to notice something. The melodies begin to sound pretty similar.

So much so that a Los Angeles judge ruled Friday that a copyright infringement lawsuit filed against Led Zeppelin’s lead singer Robert Plant and guitarist Jimmy Page will head to trial.

The lawsuit was brought by Michael Skidmore, a trustee for estate of the late Randy Wolfe, also known as Randy California, who was Spirit’s guitarist as well as the composer of “Taurus.” Skidmore first filed the lawsuit against Led Zeppelin in 2014 claiming that Led Zeppelin was inspired to write “Stairway to Heaven” after hearing Spirit perform “Taurus” during shared gigs in 1968 and 1969.

However, the judge noted that Led Zeppelin’s surviving members testified “they never toured with, shared a stage with, or listened to any of Spirit’s music during these brief encounters.”

Still in a 1979 winter issue of the magazine “Listener,” Wolfe called Led Zeppelin’s “Stairway to Heaven” a  “ripoff” saying,

And the guys made millions of bucks on it and never said ‘Thank you,’ never said, ‘Can we pay you some money for it?’ It’s kind of a sore point with me. Maybe someday their conscience will make them do something about it.

Wolfe drowned that same year while rescuing his 12-year-old son from a rip current near his home in Hawaii.

According to Rolling Stone, Spirit and Wolfe’s family waited until now to challenge the song’s copyright because they lacked the finances to afford an attorney.

This isn’t the first time Led Zeppelin has been accused of plagiarizing other artists. In 2014 Bloomberg Businessweek explained that the band has built somewhat of a reputation for “borrowing” bits and pieces from blues and folk singers. Over several decades Led Zeppelin has been forced to alter credits and royalties for some of its biggest songs after artists successfully won similar copyright infringement lawsuits against it. The plagiarism accusations have even lead to rise in YouTube mashup videos comparing Led Zeppelin’s songs to their alleged influencers.

The music industry has seen a rise in high profile copyright infringement cases in recent years, including Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams’ loss to Marvin Gaye’s family over their song “Blurred Lines” and Sam Smith’s rumored settlement with Tom Petty over his song “Stay With Me.” In both cases the songs’ similarities to their predecessors are almost unnoticeable to non-audiophiles’ ears. That can’t necessarily be said of Led Zeppelin and Spirit’s case.

The “Stairway to Heaven” trial is set to begin on May 10. Wolfe’s estate attorneys are asking that he be credited for the song and earn a portion of the song’s profits, which according to NPR were up to $562 million in 2008. However, Wolfe’s trustee could only earn half of any awarded damages due to a 1967 contract that Wolfe signed.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Did Led Zeppelin Steal the Opening Riff in “Stairway to Heaven?” appeared first on Law Street.

When news came out that Netflix was spearheading a “Gilmore Girls” revival, fans (including myself) rejoiced. However not everyone was as happy. Gavin Polone, the original producer of the popular early 2000s dramedy, is suing Warner Bros. to get compensation for the new episodes of the show.

Netflix is planning four installments of long episodes/movies–around 90 minutes–that includes many members of the original cast, including Lauren Graham, Alexis Bledel, Kelly Bishop, Scott Patterson, and Melissa McCarthy, as well as the original writer/director Amy Sherman-Palladino. The show, which ended in 2007, explored the lives of a single mother, her daughter, parents, family and friends in bucolic Connecticut.

As of right now, the release date for the new installment of “Gilmore Girls” has not been determined, but the show’s revival has already garnered heavy news coverage. As various former cast members have signed on, there has been rampant speculation about what the plot will be, and photos from the set were recently released.

In a suit filed late last week in Los Angeles, Polone claims that the contract he had with Warner Bros. entitles him to $32,500 per episode created after 2003, and some of the money gleaned from the episode, as well as an executive producer credit. All said and done, Polone argues he’s owed just under $200,000. According to Polone’s lawsuit, Warner Bros. obviously disagrees:

Defendant refuses to compensate plaintiff in any way for the Subsequent Episodes of Gilmore Girls. Defendant argues that the Subsequent Episodes do not fall under the terms of the Operative Agreement, making the absurd claim that the Subsequent Episodes are derivative works based on the television series Gilmore Girls. Defendant also appears to erroneously believe the Subsequent Episodes are not considered a ‘television series’ because they are being produced for Netflix, rather than a traditional broadcast network.

As of right now, Warner Bros. has not released a comment.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Former Producer Gavin Polone Sues Warner Bros. Over “Gilmore Girls” Revival appeared first on Law Street.

This week, news became public that the daughter of late action star Paul Walker is receiving a $10.1 million settlement from the estate of the man, Roger Rodas, who was driving the car when it crashed, killing both Walker and Rodas.

The settlement was decided in November of 2014, roughly a year after Walker’s death, but the information about it wasn’t made public until this week. According to court documents, $7.2 million of the money is in a trust for Meadow Walker, 17, the rest went toward legal fees. However that $10 million-plus settlement is just a “fraction of what her father would have earned as an international movie star had his life not been tragically cut short.”

USA Today reports that Rodas’s estate released the following statement:

Through his estate, Mr. Rodas, the driver of the car, took partial responsibility for the crash. Meadow’s lawsuit against Porsche AG – a $13 billion corporation – intends to hold the company responsibly for producing a vehicle that was defective and caused Paul Walker’s death.

That lawsuit, brought by Meadow Walker’s lawyers against Porsche, is still ongoing. She is accusing the German-based carmaker of skimping on safety features that could have saved her father’s life.

Porsche claims that Walker’s death was Rodas’s fault for driving too quickly, particularly after an investigation conducted by Los Angeles police pointed to speed as the catalyst of the accident. Porsche has also alleged that the vehicle wasn’t properly operated or maintained. But Walker claims that the vehicle wasn’t going as fast as the investigation alleged; additionally Walker is arguing that had the Porsche been safer, her father wouldn’t have been severely burned after the crash–which ultimately led to his death. However it’s unclear if Walker’s lawsuit against Porsche will be successful–a similar lawsuit brought by Rodas’s widow ruled in favor of Porsche recently, stating: “Plaintiff has provided no competent evidence that Rodas’ death occurred as a result of any wrongdoing on the part of Defendant.”

For Meadow Walker, it’s all presumably bittersweet–while the money set aside in a trust for her will ensure that she has enough to live on, it’s certainly less than her father would have made had he not lost his life in the tragic 2013 crash, and can’t replace him.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Paul Walker’s Daughter Awarded Settlement Money for Father’s Death appeared first on Law Street.

Former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin is threatening to sue rapper Azealia Banks after a mixup over a satirical article spawned a profanity-laced Twitter feud that is definitely NSFW.

The feud probably came as no surprise to hip hop fans, since the “212” rapper’s fledgling music career has easily been overshadowed by her propensity for internet trolling.

When Banks isn’t calling flight attendants “f*ggots” or renaming Iggy Azalea “Igloo Australia,” she lets her “trigger fingers turn to twitter fingers” by inciting nasty feuds with celebrities seemingly at random.

However, the normally unapologetic rapper may have just swallowed a bit of her pride after Palin threatened to take legal action if Banks didn’t issue a public apology.

But before we get to that, let’s recap the bizarre timeline of events that got us here.

March 31:

A satirical website posted an article with a clickbait title claiming to quote Palin as saying “Even The French Understand That Slavery Wasn’t Our Fault, Because The Negroes Liked It.” Fake Palin went on to say,

I’m going to say it once again loudly and clearly: Negroes loved being slaves and they were doing just fine under our rules. So, you see, you can’t really blame us for any of it, not legitimately.

April 3:

Banks presumably stumbled upon said article (clearly not knowing that that it is fake), and launched into one of her notorious Twitter rants.

The tweets have since been deleted, but not before someone at the Media Research Center quickly managed to snag screenshots that can be seen here.

***Warning: This is where the NSFW part comes in

Banks writes:

12:42 am

Sarah Palin needs to have her hair shaved off to a buzz cut, get headfucked by a big veiny, ashy, black dick then be locked in a cupboard.

12:44 am

Hideous. At least suk a nigga dick or summ’ before you start talking shit about “black people willingly accepting slavery”. Least she can do

12:46 am

Honestly… Let’s find the biggest burliest blackest negroes and let them runa train on her. Film it and put it on worldstar.

April 4

Breitbart publishes an article titled “Rapper Azealia Banks Calls for Sarah Palin to Be Gang-Raped by Black Men.”

April 5

(This is point where deciphering the timeline got a little bit messy, so I’m going to break it down by event.)

Palin Responds on Facebook

Palin responds to the article by writing an open letter to Banks on her Facebook, in which she writes,

Hey Female Rapper – listen up, little darling. No one has any idea what you’re wigging out about in these bizarre, violent rants against me, but you’re obviously not exercising enough intelligence to acknowledge you’ve been sucked into believing some fake interview in which I supposedly offered comments representing the antithesis of my truth.

Palin then promises to check her daughter’s playlist to make sure none of Banks’ “anti-woman, pro-rape garbage” is on it.

Legal Threats Are Made

Taking Trump’s lead, Palin then tells People Magazine in an interview that she plans to take legal action against Banks “on behalf of all reasonable women of every age, race and political leaning” if Banks doesn’t issue a public apology.

Banks Responds on Twitter

LOL, if Sarah Palin actually decides to sue me i’ll only use the controversy to make myself an even larger American Cultural Figure.

— AZEALIABANKS (@AZEALIABANKS) April 5, 2016

The Sarah Palin page in history will be condensed to a footnote in the Azealia Banks chapter. Well behaved women seldom make history.

— AZEALIABANKS (@AZEALIABANKS) April 5, 2016

Everyone can tell you’re spreading them cheeks for Mr. Trump Sarah….. you ain’t got to lie.

— AZEALIABANKS (@AZEALIABANKS) April 5, 2016

Then She Kinda Apologizes

In a now-deleted letter posted to her Tumblr, Banks combines a mix of flattery and insults to pen what very well may be the strangest apology ever. At one point Banks attempts to explain to the 52-year-old politician the distinctions between “running a train” on someone and rape, as well as ends the letter by saying that “if Bristol Palin listened to my music she probably wouldn’t have all those cotdamn kids!!!! ;-P #sis #iud #stayinschool #causeitsthebest””

So…now you should be all caught up.

It’s extremely doubtful that Palin will actually accept Banks’ apology, especially since the rapper’s recent Twitter feed has become largely devoted to mocking Palin. That being said, a legitimate lawsuit doesn’t necessarily seem all that likely either. For now, all we can do is sit back and wait for Palin’s response.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Azealia Banks’ Feud With Sarah Palin is Bizarre and Definitely NSFW appeared first on Law Street.