On Wednesday, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit on behalf of controversial alt-right writer Milo Yiannopoulos, a decision that surprised and upset many. The organization claims that the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) violated Yiannopoulos’ right to free speech by removing ads for his new book from the transit system. The ads were not removed until after people had complained about them.

Yiannopoulos, the outspoken Breitbart editor, has made controversial comments about many groups, including feminists, women, trans people, and gay people. Ironically, he’s slammed the ACLU in the past.

The ACLU routinely defends the First Amendment rights of people not sharing its political views, which lean to the left. The organization has so far tended to be critical of the Trump Administration. But it also makes a point of defending the constitutional rights of everyone, regardless of ideology. “When we give government the power to regulate speakers based on their identity or their perceived level of offense, it reduces speech for all of us,” Lee Rowland, a staff attorney at the ACLU, pointed out.

But the decision to defend Milo–a man who has said that transgender people are mentally ill and that feminism is a cancer–was too much even for some people working at the ACLU. On Wednesday, attorney Chase Strangio posted a statement criticizing the decision on Twitter.

“Milo preys on the deep-seated hatred for Black people, other people of color, trans people, immigrants, Muslim people and women that is sadly a central tenet of our social fabric and political system,” Strangio wrote. “He is vile. And I am sorry for any platform and validation that he receives.”

Here is my personal statement on today’s ACLU lawsuit defending that horrible person. I speak only for myself. pic.twitter.com/4KzsoqnmUn

— Chase Strangio (@chasestrangio) August 9, 2017

A lot of people seemed to agree with Strangio and many longtime supporters declared that they do not see the point in working with someone who is so hateful against so many.

You have literally no reason to include him in this case except to grab headlines and milk his fans for donation dollars.

— Lulu Diavolo (@SatansJacuzzi) August 9, 2017

As a long-time ACLU supporter, I could not possibly disagree more. What a wrong-headed position. https://t.co/j96WlB8gtN

— Charles Johnson (@Green_Footballs) August 10, 2017

But others saw the value in always standing up for First Amendment rights.

I cannot STAND this guy. But he has the right to speak, just like we all do.

— Deletrix (@DeletrixV) August 10, 2017

Arthur Spitzer, who is acting as lead counsel on the case, said that it is important to keep defending the constitutional rights of even those who are seen as the most despicable. “We always get some when we defend unpopular people. When we recently supported the Redskins’ right to keep their registered trademarks, we got similar reactions, internally and externally,” he said.

After Strangio’s statement went public, some questioned how it’s okay for him to express views that run counter to his employer’s. Spitzer said the ACLU has 1,000 employees and that it would be impossible for everyone to agree on every case they take. He said all employees and board members can always use their right to free speech to state their opinions, as long as they are clear that it’s their personal opinion and not that of the ACLU, which Strangio did.

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 ACLU Attorney Criticizes Decision to Work With Milo Yiannopoulos appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

12 Arrested After London Terror Attack

On Saturday evening, Britain suffered its third terrorist attack in just a few months. This time, a van drove into a crowd of people on the London Bridge. Then, three men jumped out and started stabbing people at the nearby Borough Market. Seven people died and at least 50 were injured. Police shot and killed the three attackers. A day after the attack, Islamic State took responsibility. Yesterday, 12 people were arrested in connection with the attack and this morning, police raided two addresses in East London. Now a lot of people are questioning Britain’s counterterrorism capabilities, and many are criticizing Prime Minister Theresa May for not doing enough. The latest tragedy comes only a few days before Britain holds its general election on Thursday.

The President is taking the London Mayor’s comments out of context to attack him—just days after his city experienced a terror attack. https://t.co/IW2CHewKCz

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) June 5, 2017

President Donald Trump condemned the attack on Twitter, but also mocked London’s Mayor Sadiq Khan, further straining the relationship between the two countries. He also pointed to Saturday’s attack as justification for his travel ban, which is currently held up in court. His attack on the mayor was internationally criticized, and several Democrats have slammed the idea of a travel ban in the wake of the attack.

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 RantCrush Top 5: June 5, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Bryan Fischer, host of the talk radio program “Focal Point,” made a statement on Twitter over the weekend claiming that gay people have stolen the rainbow from God. Citing the Bible passage Genesis 9:11-17, Fischer called the rainbow flag the “worst example of cultural appropriation ever.” Considering Fischer posted the tweet the day after April 1, it could have been seen as an April Fools’ Day joke. But that does not seem to be the case.

Worst example of cultural appropriation ever: LGBTs stole the rainbow from God. It’s his. He invented it. Gen. 9:11-17. Give it back.

— Bryan Fischer (@BryanJFischer) April 2, 2017

A lot of people responded with their own interpretations of who actually stole the rainbow.

@BryanJFischer oh no, the loathsome gays, they’re hoarding all the light refracted through water vapor in the entire world!!!

— Nate Bethea (@inthesedeserts) April 2, 2017

Many of us know that Super Mario Kart had a track made of rainbows.

Worst example of cultural appropriation ever: LGBTs stole the rainbow from Mario. It’s his. He invented it. Super Mario Kart. Give it back. pic.twitter.com/YLqaN0hdnW

— Joshua MacDougall (@FreakinClever) April 2, 2017

Could it have been the Care Bears?

“Give it back.” pic.twitter.com/9QDJHVGuIu

— Parker Molloy (@ParkerMolloy) April 2, 2017

While we’re at it, it’s more than rainbows that are being stolen.

Worst example of cultural appropriation ever: Steve Jobs stole the apple from God. It’s his. He invented it. Gen. 2:2-6. Give it back.

— ㅤ ㅤ ㅤㅤ ㅤleo (@nyazamada) April 3, 2017

Maybe Fischer should think more before speaking his mind.

worst example of cultural appropriation ever: white people stole jesus christ from the middle east. he was jewish and brown. give him back. https://t.co/FuYdT8juiL

— pipit (@seasaltpip) April 2, 2017

Fischer’s statement follows the death of the man who actually created the LGBTQ community’s rainbow flag, Gilbert Baker. He passed away quietly in his sleep last Thursday, at the age of 65. Baker created a bunch of different flags and advocated for gay rights while he was stationed in San Francisco. Even though he was there to serve in the army in the 1970s, he also was an anti-war advocate. He created the rainbow flag for the first openly gay man who was elected for office in California, Harvey Milk, in 1978.

Rest in peace Gilbert Baker – creator of the rainbow flag. A perfect symbol for unity and pride. pic.twitter.com/VDag5KEv6Z

— Bill de Blasio (@NYCMayor) March 31, 2017

Bryan Fischer’s views are so extreme that the church where he was serving as a pastor kicked him out. He has blamed gay men for the Holocaust, called for the criminalization of homosexuality, a permanent ban on Muslim immigration, and has made many more extreme comments. He has said Hillary Clinton was possessed by a demon and said Sarah Palin’s joke about waterboarding was “clever and funny,” since “waterboarding is not torture.”

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 Bryan Fischer Wants the LGBTQ Community to Give the Rainbow Back to God appeared first on Law Street.

Yesterday, you may have seen tweets going around about “the future that liberals want.” It all started when an alt-right account tweeted out a photo of a drag performer and a woman in a niqab sitting next to each other on the New York subway:

This is the future that liberals want. pic.twitter.com/QwterpqQbH

— /pol/ News Network (@polNewsNetwork1) March 1, 2017

And well…that IS the future liberals want–diversity and acceptance for all. And, of course, solid public transportation. So, Twitter users quickly started trolling the account, with all the awesome possible liberal futures. Check out some of the best entries in the slideshow below:

this is the future that liberals want pic.twitter.com/6671NeUw3y

— Amanda M-W (@Manda_like_wine) March 2, 2017

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 Some of the Best Tweets About the “Future That Liberals Want” appeared first on Law Street.

From documenting human rights abuses in China to investigating political corruption scandals in Nigeria, Voice of America (VOA) often serves as the only source of global news in nations with restrictive press freedoms. Aired in more than 100 countries, translated in 61 languages, and seen by over 278 million viewers worldwide, today VOA is the largest provider of multilingual content aimed at promoting democratic interests abroad. However, recent structural changes within the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), the independent agency responsible for overseeing U.S. government information services, may result in VOA becoming more of a household name in 2017.

A new provision in the National Defense Authorization Act for the 2017 fiscal year has replaced the BBG’s bipartisan nine-member board with a single CEO selected by the president. The BBG supervises not only VOA, but also Television Martí, Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, and Radio Free Asia. Certain political analysts now worry that President Donald Trump could potentially capitalize on the provision and use the BBG’s vast network to combine his television background and foreign policy interests. According to Politico, “Trump is finally getting his Trump TV–financed by taxpayers to the tune of $800 million per year.”

Voice of America’s Origins

Originally VOA began as an alternative to Nazi and Japanese wartime propaganda in 1942. However, under the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, the network was forbidden from broadcasting in the United States until 2013 out of fears that it would inundate Americans with propaganda. Despite the ban being lifted during Obama’s presidency, speculations over VOA’s autonomy stem from such historic origins.

Nowadays, VOA claims that it functions as “surrogate media” in countries where state-run media supersedes the free press. Former president Gerald Ford tried to honor the agency’s editorial independence in 1976 by enacting a VOA public charter. To distance the agency from claims of propaganda, the bill solidified VOA’s commitment to promoting freedom of the press and transparent reporting on American foreign policy, according to the VOA website.

Along those lines, the BBG launched in 1994 after the International Broadcasting Act passed. Designed to function as an editorial “firewall” between American policymakers and journalists, the board was founded to prevent the State Department, White House, and other agencies from interfering with the news agency. As previously mentioned, historically the BBG has been comprised of nine members tasked with preserving the “accuracy, balance, comprehensiveness and objectivity” of the United State’s transnational media operations. Originally it was part of the U.S. Information Agency, but it became an independent agency in 1999 with the legislation of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act.

Criticisms & Legal Changes Threatening Editorial Independence

From allegations of ineffective public diplomacy to a poorly managed $750 million budget of taxpayer dollars, the BBG is no stranger to criticism. In 2012, the board was ranked as one of the most poorly managed federal government agencies to work for due to its “hostile board dynamics,” and opponents claim the BBG fails to compete with Russia’s RT or Qatar’s Al Jazeera. According to one report, the former nine-member council was “incompetent, useless, and perhaps fatally broken” due to unqualified board members not taking the job seriously.

The new provision, which passed by a 92-7 vote in the Senate led by House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce (R-CA), replaces the board of directors with a presidential-appointed CEO who will serve a three-year term and report directly to the White House. A Washington Post article speculates that checks and balances may be eliminated by placing power into the hands of an individual chosen by the highest authority. With Trump officially in office, the story raises the concern that he could take advantage of the new amendment to elect another representative from the transpiring alt-right movement (or even elect an official with close ties to the Kremlin) to oversee the BBG.

Roots for Concern in Trump’s Administration.

According to NPR, Trump’s “attitude toward the press veers wildly depending on the favorability of the treatment he receives.” Trump, who is known for lashing out at mainstream media outlets for critical coverage, set an alarming standard when he selected Steve Bannon as his chief strategist. The appointment left many Americans fearful of what President Trump could accomplish with the spokesman of the alt-right movement as his lead accomplice, according to a New York Times article. Bannon previously served as executive chairman of hyper-conservative Breitbart News, whose columns “reflect abhorrence for so-called mainstream media organizations” such as CNN. Watchdog groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League condemned Trump’s decision based on Bannon’s platform of white nationalism and accusations of anti-Semitism.

After choosing Bannon, President Trump is expected to appoint a divergent political figure to represent  U.S. media abroad as the head of the BBG. Whoever Trump ends up appointing as the new CEO will have the ability to hire and fire media personnel at will, in addition to controlling the budget with unparalleled authority. Although the prospective CEO is also expected to choose their own five-member cabinet, they won’t have any statutory power. Skeptics from the Washington Post are saying that VOA could someday rival the Kremlin in terms of lack of oversight.

“Congress unwittingly just gave President-elect Trump unchecked control of all U.S. media outlets,” said Michael Kempner, a Democratic member of the board who was appointed by President Barack Obama and was a Hillary Clinton donor. “No president, either Democrat or Republican, should have that kind of control. It’s a public jewel. Its independence is what makes it so credible.”

Conclusion

While credible concerns have arisen over VOA’s new Trump leadership, “Trump TV” may in fact already be here. Conservative media outlet Right Side Broadcasting Network (RSBN) is often referenced using the moniker after live streaming nearly all of Trump’s events and extensively covering his campaign. In December, the new 24-hour network announced it will have access to White House press briefings, raising questions about whether President Trump intends to circumvent traditional media by allowing a non-credentialed reporter to ask questions during briefings. Regardless, Trump still has the BBG and VOA in his pocket. While VOA never managed to fulfill its potential as an American propaganda tool before, it very well could under Trump’s presidency.

Jacob Atkins

Jacob Atkins is a freelance blogger and contributor for Law Street Media. After studying print journalism and international relations at American University, Jacob now resides in Madrid where he is teaching English, pursuing multimedia reporting projects and covering global news. Contact Jacob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

http://jacobson.pressfolios.com/

The post Will Voice of America Become ‘Trump TV’? appeared first on Law Street.

Steve Bannon, the chief strategist for President-elect Donald Trump, faced heavy criticism last week, with many calling him an alt-right white nationalist–a label he denied in an interview with The Wall Street Journal.

In the interview, Bannon said:

I’m an economic nationalist. I am an America first guy. And I have admired nationalist movements throughout the world, have said repeatedly strong nations make great neighbors. I’ve also said repeatedly that the ethno-nationalist movement, prominent in Europe, will change over time. I’ve never been a supporter of ethno-nationalism.

Despite his denial, Twitter exploded as many suggested that the former Breitbart executive should accept the title.

Steve Bannon is a WHITE NATIONALIST. Call him one. He’s earned it. https://t.co/FY0kaHUAfM

— Lauren Duca (@laurenduca) November 20, 2016

STEVE BANNON IS A WHITE NATIONALIST
STEVE BANNON IS A WHITE NATIONALIST
STEVE BANNON IS A WHITE NATIONALIST

— DigitalBridget (@BridgetMarie) November 14, 2016

Bannon said the political attacks against him and Breitbart News are “just nonsense.” According to CNN, Bannon has been associated with Breitbart since 2007.

Breitbart was vehemently pro-Trump throughout his presidential campaign. Described by The Wall Street Journal as an “attack machine against Democrats and ‘establishment’ conservatives,” the site has faced criticism for pushing conspiracy theories and for articles that have been labeled racist, sexist, and anti-Semitic.

Bannon dismissed the alt-right’s appeal to racists as a mere coincidence in an interview with Mother Jones.

“Look, are there some people that are white nationalists that are attracted to some of the philosophies of the alt-right? Maybe,” he said. “Are there some people that are anti-Semitic that are attracted? Maybe. Right? Maybe some people are attracted to the alt-right that are homophobes, right? But that’s just like, there are certain elements of the progressive left and the hard left that attract certain elements.”

Like Trump, Bannon has criticized establishment politicians and the GOP. In the wake of the election, he plans to usher in a “new political movement,” one that he hopes could allow the GOP to hold its reign over the government for some 50 years.

President-elect Trump will assume office on January 20, and in the meantime, he continues to fill his future cabinet.

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 Steve Bannon Tries to Clear Up his Image appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Oh My Gosh, They Made A Three Parent Baby!

Five months ago, a scientific miracle was born in Mexico (because the U.S. ain’t about that life), a child born with the DNA of three parents. I know, I know, you must be asking: how does one have a three person baby? Well this family, fearing that their baby would inherit an awful condition from the mother’s side, allowed doctors to create an embryo using the dad’s sperm, the mom’s egg, and donor DNA, by removing the mitochondrial material that carried the disease and replacing it with the donor’s mitochondrial DNA. They essentially deleted the chance of that particular disease from the family’s offspring using this awesome new technique! Crazy, right?

The baby now carries less than one percent of that gene and doctors say it shouldn’t become a problem.

via GIPHY

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: September 28, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.