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:

Trump Announces Ban on Trans People Serving in the Military

In a surprise series of tweets this morning, President Donald Trump announced a new military policy. Per Trump’s tweets, he plans on banning trans people from any and all military service.

After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow……

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

….Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming…..

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

….victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

It’s unclear which “generals and military experts” he consulted with, but this announcement marks a major departure from current military policy. Last year, it was announced that trans individuals would be able to serve openly in the military. It’s also unclear what will happen to trans people already serving. Exact numbers are, understandably, hard to quantify, but it’s believed that approximately 1,320-6,630 trans Americans currently serve. But their medical care, which Trump cites as the reasoning for precluding them from service, contributes to a miniscule percentage of Department of Defense health care expenditures. Estimates put caring for trans people in the military anywhere from $2-8 million. For context, the DoD’s total yearly health care spending is to the tune of $50 billion.

There are a lot of details still to come, but right now, it seems clear that this move was at least partly political:

Just spoke to a Trump administration official about the transgender military decision. Here’s what they said… pic.twitter.com/eOWdvlxTfd

— Jonathan Swan (@jonathanvswan) July 26, 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 RantCrush Top 5: July 26, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Last Tuesday, the European Union Court of Human Rights upheld Belgium’s 2011 ban on wearing the full-face veil, also known as the niqab, in public places.

This decision comes after two Muslim women mounted a legal challenge to the ban, claiming that it violated their civil rights. Belgian national Samia Belcacemi and Moroccan national Yamina Oussar both say they voluntarily choose to wear the niqab and that in not being able to, their right to religious freedom is being infringed upon.

Oussar reportedly told the court that she decided to stay home after the ban was introduced in fear of legal repercussions. Belcacemi continued to wear the veil for a period, but stopped because of societal pressure and fear that she would be heavily fined.

Under the law, individuals who fail to comply with the law regarding full-face coverings face penalties ranging from a hefty fine to imprisonment for repeat offenders.

The European Court of Human Rights upholds a Belgian ban on wearing the full-face niqab veil in public pic.twitter.com/S1unR1Y4Dq

— AFP news agency (@AFP) July 11, 2017

Siding with Belgium’s legislature in a unanimous vote, the seven-person panel said a statement that the ban is “necessary in a democratic society” and that the Belgian law is meant to ensure “public safety, equality between men and women and a certain concept of living together in a society.”

A hot-button issue in Europe

The topic of people’s freedom of religious expression in the public sphere has been at the forefront of European politics for several years now.

Belgium is not the first country to take a stance against the niqab or burqa. France banned full-face veils in 2010, and since then, at least 10 other European countries have placed limitations on Islamic dress. Just last month, Norwegian legislators proposed a ban on full-face veils in public schools and universities. The bans are largely seen as a response to the influx of refugees in the region. In Belgium, the 2016 terror attacks have also intensified the debate.

Federal Pensions Minister Daniel Bacquelaine, a member of Belgium’s Reformist Movement party, said on Twitter he was delighted at the court’s announcement, which he believes will strengthen Belgians’ ability to live together.

“To forbid the veil as a covering is to give them more freedom,” Baquelaine said back in 2010 before the law passed. “If we want to live together in a free society, we need to recognize each other.”

Since the E.U. court’s decision, human rights groups have expressed their discontent with the ruling.

“Fostering human relations is a laudable goal,” wrote Hillary Margolis, the Women’s Division Researcher at Human Rights Watch. “But forcing women to choose between wearing what they want and being able to appear in public isn’t the way to do it.”

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post EU Human Rights Court Upholds Belgian Ban on Full-Face Veil appeared first on Law Street.

Russia’s Supreme Court has banned the Jehovah’s Witness organization after the Ministry of Justice labeled it an extremist group. The denomination already was on shaky ground in Russia, as the government had banned its literature and website as well as arrested members and seized their property. But now with a complete and nationwide ban, the group’s headquarters in St. Petersburg and 395 local branches will all become state property.

Last year, the Russian general prosecutor issued a warning to the group, urging it to stop all “extremist” activities. But there was no clarification of what that means or which activities would be seen as “extremist.” One of the Jehovah’s Witnesses main codes of conduct is to be peaceful and not engage in violence. But according to an attorney with the country’s Justice Ministry, Svetlana Borisova, the Jehovah’s Witnesses “pose a threat to the rights of the citizens, public order and public security.”

But the Jehovah’s Witnesses dispute this claim, and the organization published a statement on its website on Wednesday. It says that Russian officials never specified any legal basis for the ban. According to the country’s anti-extremism law, crimes that are “motivated by prejudice or, as stated in Russian law, ‘ideological, political, racial, national or religious enmity, as well as hatred or enmity towards a social group’” are extremist crimes.

#Russia: #JehovahsWitnesses ban – blow 2 #FoRB, sign of totality. Pacifism is not extremism. https://t.co/FymTwysX6x pic.twitter.com/8auTw7Yp9B

— Jan Figel (@janfigel) April 21, 2017

The group argues that if that is the law under which the Jehovah’s Witnesses are banned, that sounds like a clear misuse of the law. It describes the opposite of what the organization promotes, which is anti-violence. “In the whole world, Jehovah’s Witnesses are known as peaceful, obedient, respectful citizens. We respect government, and we are politically totally neutral,” said Yaroslav Sivulsky, an official from Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia.

The anti-extremism law also makes it illegal for any group other than the Orthodox Church to claim to “offer the true path to religious salvation.” This basically means that there is no freedom of religion.

Many people see the latest court order as a crackdown on freedom of religion and expression. Some worry that other groups of people or religions will be next. Human Rights Watch issued a statement from Moscow and said the ban is “a serious breach of Russia’s obligations to respect and protect religious freedom.”

Catholics for Choice condemns #Russia‘s ban on Jehovah’s Witnesses (learn more: https://t.co/KDelnhPC1W) pic.twitter.com/FrMCalcF6X

— Catholics for Choice (@Catholic4Choice) April 21, 2017

There are about 170,000 Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia and they are all now officially in the same category as extremists like Islamic State. According to the New York Times, the group does not engage in politics or criticism against the government. But President Putin has repeatedly targeted the Jehovah’s Witnesses since his third term began in 2012, when he started promoting the Orthodox Church in order to lift Russia to greater international power.

Victor Zhenkov is a lawyer representing the organization. He called the ban “an act of political repression that is impermissible in contemporary Russia.” He said they would appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court, and if that it fails, take it to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France.

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 Russia Bans Jehovah’s Witnesses, Labels Them Extremists appeared first on Law Street.

When Dyne Suh, a law student who lives in Riverside, California, booked a stay at an Airbnb for a skiing vacation with her fiance, she asked the host whether it would be okay to bring two more guests. The host answered that it would be no problem and said they would only have to pay a little bit extra. Suh thought everything was fine but then in February, as the four friends were driving up to Big Bear, California for their trip, she texted the host again to confirm the arrangement and to ask how she wanted them to pay and how much. Suh was shocked when she got a response.

“And she says, ‘Absolutely not… You must be high if you think that that would be OK in the busiest weekend in Big Bear.’ Then she said, ‘No, we’re done,’ and she canceled the trip,” Suh said, recounting the conversation. Suh then told the host she would complain to the company and the host answered, “Go ahead. I wouldn’t rent to u if u were the last person on earth.” Then she added, “One word says it all. Asian.”

“I will not allow this country to be told what to do by foreigners,” the host texted. “It’s why we have Trump.” https://t.co/tMKVeThnPr

— HuffPostWomen (@HuffPostWomen) April 10, 2017

As if that wasn’t enough, the host wrote, “And I will not allow this country to be told what to do by foreigners. It’s why we have Trump.” Suh posted screenshots of the conversation on Facebook. A video of Suh telling her story while stranded in the snowstorm quickly went viral.

Coincidentally, Suh is a law student who focuses on race relations. She says she is a U.S. citizen and has lived in the country since she was three years old, but argues that where she’s from shouldn’t matter. “This is home to me,” she said in an interview with NBC4 Los Angeles. “No matter how long I’ve lived here, for me to be treated this way just because of my race?”

Christopher Nulty, a spokesperson for Airbnb, called the host’s behavior “abhorrent and unacceptable” in a statement to NBC4. He added, “We have worked to provide the guest with our full support and in line with our non-discrimination policy, this host has been permanently removed from the Airbnb platform.”

Airbnb has had some problems dealing with racism and discrimination among its hosts, but in September the rental site announced new guidelines to help identify and fight racial bias. The changes came after many people started using the hashtag #AirbnbWhileBlack to share their experience being discriminated against. Now it seems like there is still some work to do.

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 Airbnb Bans Host Who Canceled a Reservation Because of a Guest’s Race appeared first on Law Street.

The White House has taken the next step in its war against the media, by blocking journalists from some of the biggest news outlets from the daily press briefing on Friday. Reporters from the New York Times, CNN, Buzzfeed, the Los Angeles Times, and Politico, all of which have published critical pieces about Donald Trump, were stopped from entering the press briefing.

The only news outlets that were allowed in had been confirmed previously, the White House said, and included right leaning Breitbart News, the One America News Network, the Washington Times, and Fox News. ABC, CBS, The Wall Street Journal, and Bloomberg were also allowed in. The briefing was also changed from an on-camera event to an off-camera gaggle.

This marks an unusual and brusque new approach to the Executive Branch’s relationship with the media. Journalists from Time and the Associated Press chose to not attend in solidarity, even though they were allowed in.

The executive editor of the NY Times Dean Baquet condemned the White House’s move in a statement:

Nothing like this has ever happened at the White House in our long history of covering multiple administrations of different parties. We strongly protest the exclusion of The New York Times and the other news organizations. Free media access to a transparent government is obviously of crucial national interest.

Naturally the announcement by Spicer caused an uproar.

AP and Time boycotted the gaggle today because of the way it was handled.

— Adrian Carrasquillo (@Carrasquillo) February 24, 2017

Here’s CNN’s response:

CNN was blocked from WH @PressSec‘s media gaggle today. This is our response: pic.twitter.com/8SfY2uYKEI

— CNN Communications (@CNNPR) February 24, 2017

And many reporters showed solidarity with each other and pointed out that no matter political difference of opinions, government press briefings should be open to all.

Some at CNN & NYT stood w/FOX News when the Obama admin attacked us & tried 2 exclude us-a WH gaggle should be open to all credentialed orgs https://t.co/8Vjcs0KCPR

— Bret Baier (@BretBaier) February 24, 2017

Numerous White House reporters have split up the duties of transcribing the Spicer gaggle to share with their colleagues who were excluded.

— Byron Tau (@ByronTau) February 24, 2017

The move to shut some reporters out came just hours after President Trump’s speech at the CPAC, where he said that the media is “the enemy of the people.” He said reporters shouldn’t be allowed to have anonymous sources, and claimed they just make information up. “We’re going to do something about it,” he said.

The White House Correspondents Association disapproved of the White House’s actions. “We encourage the organizations that were allowed in to share the material with others in the press corps who were not,” the organization said in a statement. “The board will be discussing this further with White House staff.”

Some analysts believe the president is doing all he can to discredit the media and shake people’s trust in it, since it is one of the biggest treats to his presidency. “By hammering reporters as dishonest purveyors of fake news, Trump simultaneously rallies his fans and lays the groundwork for dismissing fair-minded journalism as the work of partisan hacks,” said Peter Slevin, an associate professor at Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism. Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to believe the rumors and repeat Trump’s cry of “fake news.” But that won’t stop journalists from doing their jobs.

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 White House Bans Reporters From Press Briefing: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

Last night, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel refused to reinstate President Donald Trump’s seven-country travel/immigration/Muslim/DEFINITELY-NOT-A-BAN ban.

The decision was an unmitigated loss for Trump. And what does President Trump usually do when things don’t go his way?

He has his communications team release a measured and coherent statement reiterating the White House’s position on the issue.

Just kidding.

He tweets about it.

So, after the decision was announced, Trump vented his frustrations on the beautifully insufferable and addictive cesspool that we call Twitter.

SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 9, 2017

And then….well…see for yourself:

“oh no, not court” —judges

— both are equally bad (@caseyjohnston) February 10, 2017

SEE YOU IN COURT WHERE WE ALREADY ARE BUT A DIFFERENT COURT SHUT UP NO YOU’RE STUPID!

— Stephen Colbert (@StephenAtHome) February 10, 2017

Saying “SEE YOU IN COURT” after losing a court case is like yelling “LET’S TAKE THIS OUTSIDE” after you just lost a fight outside.

— Adam Conover (@adamconover) February 10, 2017

“I’LL SEE YOU IN COURT!” is really the worst thing to yell after you just lost in court

— Erin Gloria Ryan (@morninggloria) February 9, 2017

SEE YOU IN COURT! I HOPE THAT BALIFF WITH THE PUPPET OF HIMSELF IS THERE. I LOVE THAT PUPPET! CRACKS ME UP! pic.twitter.com/SdVJBwJAkG

— Jake Fogelnest (@jakefogelnest) February 10, 2017

And then he tweeted…..
“SEE YOU IN COURT”
After just LOSING IN COURT‼️ pic.twitter.com/RZrku9Pp1C

— Dory (@Dory) February 10, 2017

Nap, then therapy, where I will very likely be told to stay off twitter. SEE YOU IN COURT

— Dan Harmon (@danharmon) February 10, 2017

An all caps “I’LL SEE YOU IN COURT” is the whitest thing to ever happen in black history month.

— Akilah Hughes (@AkilahObviously) February 10, 2017

{loses in checkers} SEE YOU IN CHECKERS

— Charles Finch (@CharlesFinch) February 9, 2017

trump: “SEE YOU IN COURT!”
court: pic.twitter.com/tNNKsLqq9S

— Giuliana (@Princessofwifi) February 10, 2017

My teacher: F
Me: SEE YOU IN COURT!

— Lexi (@lexi4prez) February 10, 2017

“See you in court” sounds like dialogue from a bad tennis movie. “See you in court. There’ll be no love. Except for your score. Loser!”

— Michelle Wolf (@michelleisawolf) February 10, 2017

me if Beyoncé doesn’t sweep the grammys https://t.co/5JiXwFeIys

— Matt Bellassai (@MattBellassai) February 10, 2017

TRUMP: SEE YOU IN COURT

JUSTICE: pic.twitter.com/85mQSKUK5Z

— jake (@jakebeckman) February 10, 2017

SEE YOU IN COURT, DONALD. pic.twitter.com/yqIhRjDClC

— Michael Skolnik (@MichaelSkolnik) February 9, 2017

“SEE YOU IN COURT” is what the rich white villain in a dance crew movie yells after he loses a rec room turf battle to a bunch of teens.

— Miles Kahn (@mileskahn) February 9, 2017

And now

*sips martini*
*rolls up sleeves*
*removes earrings*
*takes another sip*

LET’S TALK ABOUT THAT COMMA pic.twitter.com/BRz3g44WJM

— Benjamin Dreyer (@BCDreyer) February 10, 2017

Twitter is so beautiful sometimes. Watching this entire mess reminded me of something. Last night, I just couldn’t put my finger on it, but I suddenly had a revelation this morning.

I want to remind you all of a true classic in American cinema: “Air Bud.”

If you will recall, “Air Bud” is the story about a golden retriever, who is later renamed “Buddy,” who runs away from his abusive owner, a professional clown who is also an alcoholic (this movie has many layers). He then forms a relationship with a teenaged boy who just lost his father in a plane crash. Basically, Bud and the teenage boy form a bond and it’s really beautiful. Oh, also, Bud can play basketball. And he becomes famous. Again, many layers to this film. Anyway, Buddy’s old owner tries to get him back and, in a very tense scene, confronts his dog’s new owners. Check it out starting at 19:49 below:

Welp. There it is. “I’LL SEE YOU IN COURT.” Who knew “Air Bud” could be so relevant in 2017.

If you’re interested, you can watch the full movie on a random afternoon on the Freeform channel (formerly ABC Family), probably. Or in your old VHS collection. Either one is a sure fire bet.

There’s no telling what Trump means exactly by “SEE YOU IN COURT,” but today, during a joint press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Trump said “We’ll be doing something very rapidly having to do with additional security for our country, you’ll be seeing that sometime next week. In addition, we will continue to go through the court process and ultimately I have no doubt that we’ll win that particular case.”

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 Twitter Goes in on “See You In Court” appeared first on Law Street.

When Donald Trump signed an executive order that banned travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries, it came as a shock to most people. All of a sudden, families were stranded abroad, students couldn’t return to school, and refugees from war zones were denied entry. But immigration lawyers had suspected this was coming, based on rumors from the White House, and had already begun to prepare. Last Wednesday, a group of lawyers from the Urban Justice Center called for additional attorneys who could volunteer at airports where refugees were scheduled to arrive, in case an order like the one that came on Friday was announced. When that exact thing happened, lawyers willing to volunteer headed to airports across the country.

In New York, Andre Segura, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) arrived at JFK International Airport and said that one section of the airport was completely flooded by lawyers. “There were attorneys from numerous major law firms, nonprofits, all working together,” he said. “I’ve never seen that immediate coming together of teams to start filing actions to try to protect people.” Thousands of Americans protested outside airports, as lawyers were inside trying to talk to family members of detained travelers and offer their legal services pro bono. Many of these lawyers didn’t sleep all night and didn’t eat. Pictures on social media showed them sitting on floors, with laptops and phones connected to the airport’s power outlets.

Please RETWEET this tweet

Lawyers volunteering their time & knowledge to help free those wrongfully detained at #JFK #MuslimBan pic.twitter.com/Zat5mVToci

— #HeWillNotDivideUs (@HWNDUS) January 29, 2017

On Saturday night, Federal Judge Ann Donnelly announced that people with valid visas could not be sent back to where they came from, as there “is imminent danger” that there will be “substantial and irreparable injury” if they are sent back. Big crowds of people had gathered outside the courthouse and cheered the decision, but the lawyers’ work had just started. The judge’s ruling only specifically said not to send travelers back, but did not say that the detained were free to enter the U.S.

On Sunday, Customs and Border Protection Agents defied the court order, according to several congressmen and lawyers. “Four members of Congress asked CBP officials to enforce a federal court order and were turned away,” wrote Representative Don Beyer on Twitter. In New York, an Iranian Fulbright scholar was put on a plane to be sent back to Iran several hours after the airports had received orders to stop sending people away. She was forced onto an airplane, where she asked the crew to let her out but was ignored. The plane started preparing for takeoff before attorneys finally managed to persuade officials to let the woman out. Becca Heller, director of the International Refugee Assistance Project, said on Sunday that CBP agents handcuffed people, forced them onto departing airplanes, and tried to make detainees surrender their green cards.

As New Yorkers we have no tolerance for intolerance and that’s what we’re going to stand up and say. pic.twitter.com/1b85T3bD6h

— Andrew Cuomo (@NYGovCuomo) January 29, 2017

One of the most difficult tasks for the lawyers was to determine how many people were in custody, as customs officials wouldn’t provide an answer, despite pressure from congressmen and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio’s office. This meant that the lawyers needed to improvise most of their work, handwriting signs stating “immigration lawyer” in the hope that family members of detained people would approach them for help. Many lawyers were also shocked by what they were witnessing. “I’ve never seen anything like this in my practice. Maybe if we look back to Chinese exclusion laws in the 1800s,” said one of the volunteer lawyers, Jonathan Mulligan.

I repeat: A FIVE YEAR OLD BOY was detained and kept from his mother at a US airport. In our name. And Team Trump wonders why the outcry?

— Peter Daou (@peterdaou) January 29, 2017

Some volunteer lawyers were physically at the airports, but other lawyers worked on litigation from their offices. “I was sitting at my desk working on a template habeas petition that could be used by lawyers at airports all around the country,” said Cecillia Wang, deputy legal director of the ACLU. Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrant Rights Project, said getting together the paperwork that led to the judge’s stay was not an easy task; they didn’t have anything prepared in advance but had to rush to get something together when Trump’s order came.

And even after the judge’s order, confusion ruled at airports. On Monday it was still unclear how many people remained detained. Although the Department of Homeland Security claimed that everyone had been released, attorneys say that claim is impossible to verify, as the department still hasn’t released a list of names. Judge Donnelly also ordered government attorneys to hand the ACLU a complete list of names of those who were detained, but they have yet to comply. In Washington D.C., some lawyers who were told there were no detainees left at the airport suspect that they have secretly been taken to detention centers, despite the court order.

We are being told there aren’t any there. We also believe they are being taken to detention facilities. Updates when we get them. https://t.co/zuCHaLD9yE

— Mirriam Seddiq (@mirriam71) January 30, 2017

But a tweet by the volunteer group at JFK suggests that only one person was still in custody late Sunday night. Though those numbers are not officially confirmed, it seems hopeful, largely thanks to the hard work of these lawyers.

Lawyers at #NoBanJFK still going strong. #NoBanUSA#NotOnOurWatchpic.twitter.com/AfMh3LU112

— NoBanJFK (@nobanjfk) January 30, 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 Lawyers Rush to Help Travelers as Confusion Continues appeared first on Law Street.

After a month of reports of exploding, smoking, or burning cellphones, the Samsung galaxy Note 7 will now be banned on all U.S. flights, starting Saturday. The Federal Aviation Administration and Department of Transportation released a statement on Friday afternoon saying the new rules will take effect on Saturday. This is sure to be inconvenient for passengers with already scheduled flights who rely on Samsung. But after almost 100 cases of overheating and fires, it’s better to be on the safe side.

“We recognize that banning these phones from airlines will inconvenience some passengers, but the safety of all those aboard an aircraft must take priority,” said Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx.

Starting Saturday, passengers won’t be allowed to bring their Note 7s aboard an airplane even if they are shut off. Trying to do so may lead to confiscation of the phone and fines for the passenger. If anyone would be foolish enough to try and pack the phone in the checked luggage to get around it, they would risk creating an accident and could face criminal charges. The Samsung Galaxy Note 7 is now considered a forbidden hazardous material under federal law.

FAA banning #Samsung #GalaxyNote7 from all flights https://t.co/WqLA1vl0W3 pic.twitter.com/RRFV0XwXQ4

— #Q13FOX (@Q13FOX) October 14, 2016

This news comes after two separate recalls of the Note 7 phones, the first one on September 15 and the second one on Thursday, which included the replacement phones that people could exchange their original ones for. The problem with the first edition was that the lithium ion battery cells were packed so tightly into a pouch that they barely fit inside the phone, leading to pinching of the batteries. This could easily break the thin plastic that separates the positive and negative sides of the battery, which could lead to a short circuit. This in its turn would heat up the flammable liquid inside enough to make the battery explode, and the replacements had similar issues.

The whole affair is estimated to cost the company $5.3 billion in lost profits. At least 13 people have reported being burned by their phones, there have been 96 reports of overheated batteries, and there are 47 registered cases of property damage. On October 5, a smoking phone led to the evacuation of a Southwest Airlines flight. Luckily that plane was still by the gate and no one was hurt. And with the new FAA rules, there will hopefully be no issues with fires caused by phones on airplanes.

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 FAA: Samsung Note 7s are Now Banned on U.S. Flights appeared first on Law Street.

The 2013 documentary “Blackfish” portrayed the chilling reality of orcas in captivity, including the tragic death of one orca trainer who was pulled underwater by a stressed and depressed whale. Now California has become the first state in the country to ban breeding and performances by captive orcas.

State Assemblyman Richard Bloom from Santa Monica first introduced the bill in 2014 and expressed his joy on Twitter on Tuesday.

Very pleased to announce that my law protecting #orca from captive breeding in California was signed by @JerryBrownGov today

— Richard Bloom (@RichardBloom) September 13, 2016

The “Blackflish” documentary opened many people’s eyes. SeaWorld faced massive protests after it aired. The company voluntarily announced in March 2016 that it would stop captive breeding and “repackage” orca entertainment into featuring only the “natural behavior of the whales.”

PETA had worked on behalf of the orcas for a long time and was delighted by the news:

Considering what we know now about orca intelligence and sensitivity, there’s no justification for letting businesses breed more of these animals to endure chronic deprivation in tiny concrete tanks.

BREAKING VICTORY: #California has just become the first state to ban captive orca breeding! https://t.co/LoBCdqPwgz pic.twitter.com/NpVaOrOddX

— PETA (@peta) September 14, 2016

The new bill was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown on Tuesday and will ensure that SeaWorld and other parks will never begin the captive breeding practices again. But a loophole in the bill allows parks to still use whales for “educational orca encounters,” which means they could technically keep doing what they’ve been doing until now.

Former orca trainer John Hargrove, who participated in the Blackfish documentary, celebrated the new law.

California Governor Signs Bill Banning SeaWorld Orca Shows- This feels WONDERFUL! https://t.co/WO1lEWEcvS

— John Hargrove (@johnjhargrove) September 14, 2016

The law will prohibit keeping genetic material for the purpose of breeding and selling orcas to other states or countries. Facilities that keep orcas captive can only keep them for scientific, educational, or rescue purposes. Breaking the new law could result in a fine of $100,000.

Dr. Toni Frohoff from In Defense of Animals told the Dodo:

This is a momentous decision that reflects established science on orca well-being, and also public opinion that increasingly demands that these majestic, highly intelligent beings should not be held captive.

Considering the massive criticism that SeaWorld has faced, and that the new bill is the first of its kind to protect orcas, it seems like it can only get better for the whales from here.

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 California First State to Ban Orca Breeding and Performances appeared first on Law Street.

Armed police officers forced a Muslim woman to take off her burkini at the beach in Nice, France. In Cannes, another woman was fined for wearing a headscarf and leggings. These are some of the first known examples of enforcement of  a controversial ban on certain beachwear since the ban was implemented in several French towns earlier this month.

Cannes was the first town to impose the ban, which emerged after recent terrorist attacks in France. According to the rule, you cannot visit the beaches in Cannes if you are “wearing improper clothes that are not respectful of good morals and secularism.” The prohibition is widely seen as a restriction of the freedom of religion and expression that is supposed to exist in France.

According to the Telegraph, at least four armed officers approached the burkini-wearing woman on the beach in Nice and didn’t leave until she took her burkini off.

Woman forced to remove burkini on Nice beach while another given fine in Cannes https://t.co/UhI7rpeJDPpic.twitter.com/2nTpXOfn9Q

— The Telegraph (@Telegraph) August 24, 2016

The woman who was fined in Nice said she was wearing a tunic with leggings and a headscarf, sitting on the beach in Cannes with her family with no intention of going swimming. Another beach visitor who witnessed the incident, Mathilde Cousin, said, “The saddest thing was that people were shouting ‘go home,’ some were applauding the police. Her daughter was crying.”

The town of Villeneuve-Loubet was one of the first of some 15 French towns to follow the example set in Cannes, imposing similar beach rules. On Monday, a lower court ruled that the ban is “necessary, appropriate, and proportionate” to uphold public order after recent terrorist attacks. The ruling went on to say that the burkini was “liable to offend the religious convictions or [religious] non-convictions of other users of the beach” as well as “be felt as a defiance or a provocation exacerbating tensions felt by” the community.

The French NGO Human Rights League appealed the decision, saying the ban is a “serious and illegal attack on numerous fundamental rights,” notably freedom of religion.

The controversial ban will come before the highest administrative court in France on Thursday. Meanwhile, the mayor of Villeneuve-Loubet, Lionnel Luca, had another explanation for why he wanted the rule in place. He told Sky News:

I was informed that there was a couple on one of our beaches where the wife was swimming fully dressed… I considered that unacceptable for hygienic reasons and that in general it was unwelcome.

The woman he saw was swimming in the ocean, not a swimming pool. Luca did also not specify whose hygiene he was concerned about.

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 Burkini Ban: Enforcement Starts in Nice and Cannes appeared first on Law Street.

The Mayor of Cannes, in Southern France, has banned the “burkini” from its beaches. He claims it is a threat to public order and a symbol of radical Islam.

A “burkini” is simply a garment that some Muslim women wear to the beach; it covers a wearer’s whole body and hair, but not her face. This ban has been met with criticism from anti-Islamophobia groups and citizens alike, who say that Mayor David Lisnard is simply trying to gain political points in the aftermath of recent terror attacks that have kept citizens on high alert.

#Cannes bans ‘burkini’ from French Riviera beaches https://t.co/LwkVJbsw7m pic.twitter.com/YAjrW53RbT

— dwnews (@dwnews) August 12, 2016

The idea that a piece of women’s clothing could be a sign of radical Islamism and terrorism has also caused protests on social media.

The ban on burkinis also scream of Islamophobia. While other religous symbols can still be displayed, a burkini ban =”radical islam”?

— Saddiq (@SyedSaddiq) August 12, 2016

According to the BBC, Lisnard confirmed to local media that even though the Muslim religious clothing will be banned on the beaches, the Jewish kippah and the Christian cross will still be permitted. The new rule says:

Access to beaches and for swimming is banned to any person wearing improper clothes that are not respectful of good morals and secularism.

Beachwear which ostentatiously displays religious affiliation, when France and places of worship are currently the target of terrorist attacks, is liable to create risks of disrupting public order.

With the new rule, women wearing a burkini will first be asked to change into some other kind of swimwear or leave the beach. If they don’t, they will be subject to a fine of about $42.

The organization Collective Against Islamophobia in France (CCIF) has said it objects to the decision, saying in a statement on its website that no part of French law prohibits free expression of religion in public.

France has been the target of several terror attacks in the past few years; a truck attack in Nice in July was the most recent incident. CCIF pointed out in its statement that Muslims made up a third of the 85 victims at the truck attack, saying that terrorism affects everyone regardless of religion.

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 Muslim Women Can No Longer Wear Burkinis to the Beach in Cannes appeared first on Law Street.

On January 8, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s administration finished the work started by previous Mayor Michael Bloomberg by announcing that styrofoam containers will go by the wayside. This includes to-go boxes from the city’s many food trucks as well as coffee cups and packing peanuts. This is a purely environmental move, which might end up costing consumers more money and inconveniencing vendors. Though it has been met with some controversy, most people agree that ultimately it is a good decision.

Expanded Polystyrene Foam, or styrofoam, is one of mankind’s worst inventions. While it’s buoyant properties are desirable for flotation devices and its insulating properties are handy in construction projects, it is non-biodegradable. Thus it sits in landfills forever, never decomposing into the soil. Furthermore, the Department of Sanitation recently determined that it is not recyclable, which played a substantial part in deciding to ban the product. Finally, since most people’s exposure to styrofoam comes in the form of food or beverage containers, it is worth noting that some studies by the EPA suggest a possible mild carcinogenicity.

Courtesy of Jon Hayes via Flickr.

The New York City ban goes into effect on July 1, 2015; however, there will be a six-month grace period before the city begins enforcement so that vendors can seek alternatives. Furthermore, nonprofits and businesses with less than $500,000 in annual income may qualify for an exemption. Finally, while packing peanuts will no longer be sold within the city, packages containing them can still be shipped in. Nonetheless, this determination represents a great step forward in eradicating the material.

Those who support styrofoam do so because it is cheap to acquire and convenient to use; however, there are plenty of alternatives. For example, the city’s Department of Education plans to serve children their food on compostable plates instead. Starbucks and some other coffee companies hand out their products in paper cups with a cardboard ring around them; these are recyclable products that also do a sufficient job of keeping the customer’s hands from being burned. This is a poignant example, because styrofoam is a part of the fashion employed by Dunkin Donuts. In New York, they will have to find a slightly new appearance to compliment the regulations. Customers might worry that their coffee will not stay as hot for as long or will be inconvenienced in other ways.

Courtesy of Erik Sagen via Flickr.

Smaller businesses and vendors are most concerned about the ban because they will likely have to buy more expensive containers. Assuming they can find effective replacements for styrofoam, they will probably have to charge more for what is famously cheap food in order to make up their losses. Up until now it has cost $86 per ton to landfill foam, and $160 to reuse it in some form. These expenses come out of taxpayers’ pockets. Therefore consumers should be okay with paying a slightly higher price for environmentally friendly containers, because it would likely be to their financial benefit in the long run.

Just as with attempting to live off of alternative energy sources, making the transition to environmentally sustainable items and lifestyles is a difficult one. There are likely to be some monetary losses at the outset, but in the long run these things tend to prove to be more financially viable. Environmental sustainability often goes hand in hand with economic sustainability. We should not be afraid to venture outside of our comfort zones and established ways of life in quest of something new and better. Styrofoam is something we take for granted; our morning cup of coffee seems an insignificant thing, but it ends up having a massive impact as it is on a scale of hundreds of millions and of a daily occurrence.

Courtesy of Jonno Witts via Flickr.

These measures will not simply open up space in landfills; an unfortunately large amount of garbage ends up in the water. Especially considering New York City’s geographic orientation, many feel that the styrofoam ban will benefit the local aquatic biodiversity as well as the urban water supply itself. Styrofoam will not yet disappear altogether, but this is a substantial step in the right direction.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Wave Goodbye to Your Takeout Containers: NYC Bans Styrofoam appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all! Hope you’re having a great holiday season!

California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill in September to remove plastic bags from checkout counters at grocery stores and supermarkets like Wal-Mart and Target starting summer 2015, and 2016 at convenience stores and pharmacies.

Many businesses don’t agree with this ban and have started to collect signatures in order to put a referendum on the ballot in November 2016. American Progressive Bag Alliance, a trade group for plastic bag manufacturing, claims to be turning in about 800,000 signatures. The group really only needs 500,000 valid signatures to qualify for the referendum but it could take several weeks for the counties to determine if all of the signatures are valid.

There are already about 100 counties in California that ban plastic bags, but it is not required for the whole state. It’s no surprise that San Francisco and Los Angeles are two of the cities that already have this ban.

I like the idea of banning plastic bags; it helps the environment. But I don’t like the idea that if you forget to bring your own cloth bags with you then you either have to purchase new ones or you pay ten cents per paper bag. That can start to add up after a while. When I go to the grocery store I go to get things to last me for a week or two, not just a couple of days. I tend to walk out with a ton of bags at once, not just two or three. I don’t imagine everyone shops for just a day or two in advance; grocery shopping takes time out of an already busy day for most.

The majority of Californians support the ban on plastic bags, but why not allow those people who do not support it to still use plastic without a fee? For everyone who likes the ban, continue using your cloth bags and doing what you do!

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Californians Fighting Against Plastic Bag Ban appeared first on Law Street.

Childhood and adult obesity is highly reported as a growing epidemic in the United States, yet less often do we hear of the negative psychological and physical ramifications of eating disorders. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, anorexia nervosa is the most fatal mental disorder, “[with] an estimated mortality rate of around 10 percent.” According to the National Eating Disorder Association, “20 million women and 10 million men [in the United States] suffer from a clinically significant eating disorder at some time in their life.” Although these types of disorders may not always be obvious, they are taking a toll on many young Americans who suffer in silence until it is too late.

What is an eating disorder?

An eating disorder is a life consuming mental illness that forces an individual to consciously diet or consume to an extreme, detrimental point. People who are affected by an eating disorder constantly obsess over calories, food, and their body weight. In the case of anorexia, the person limits his or her calorie intake to an extremely low and unhealthy number and adheres to a strict diet only consisting of “safe” foods. An individual with bulimia binges until he or she is uncomfortably full, then purges by vomiting. These disorders cause serious physical and psychological damage and can ultimately result in death. They are fueled by personal angst, trauma, and are essentially a way to cope with negative feelings, including personality disorders such as Obsessive Compulsive and extreme perfectionist tendencies. Eating disorders go beyond the surface desire of wanting to be thin. If left untreated through cognitive therapy and support, eating disorders will progressively consume the victim, until his or her entire life revolves around appeasing this internally violent illness.

What is a Pro-Ana/Mia website?

A Pro-Ana/Mia website is a public forum on which people, the majority of whom are women, with eating disorders share tips for maintaining an anorexic or bulimic lifestyle. Members share diet, beauty, and fitness tips that revolve around the theme of being thin. Discussions are not all illogical, yet the majority of them are fueled by the intense desire to remain in control, with the ultimate goal of reaching the most emaciated state possible. The sites often feature photographs of extremely thin people whose bones protrude and bodies that appear sick and gaunt. According to Children’s Mercy Hospital and Clinics, “there are now over 400 pro-ana/mia websites.” These sites encourage people to embrace their disorders as a lifestyle and assure victims that they are not abnormal or alone in their choice to live with an eating disorder. They promote and enhance the typically negative image that eating disorders support. Woman offer each other support to fuel the disorder, continuously telling it that the body is not (and never will) be thin enough. According to the National Association of Anorexia Nervosa and Associated Disorders characteristics of a pro-ana site include:

• The glamorization/idolization of images of emaciated or very thin individuals

• The implication that food and weight are the enemy

• Encouragement and teaching of dangerous eating disorder behaviors

• Promotion of thinness at any cost, denial of the seriousness of the illness

• Insistence that eating disorders are choices rather than illnesses

• Attempts to mask toxicity by being exclusive and elite

What the investigative report below on the dangers of pro-anorexic (pro-ana) and pro-bulimia (pro-mia) websites.

Do Pro-Ana/Mia Websites constitute free speech?

Eating disorders continue to carry a negative connotation despite their increasing popularity among teens and young women. This doesn’t stop women from openly spilling their diet and exercise secrets, no matter how extreme and unhealthy. The pro-ana maxim is “thinspiration.” Girls motivate one another to maintain their eating disorders and are virtually assisting each other in a prolonged suicide.

This information is accessible to children. Girls mature faster than boys and are susceptible to the influence of their peers as early as the age of eight. If curiosity about weight loss becomes appealing, the individual has this controversial information right at her fingertips. Proponents of the movement feel that if these websites are not censored they will continue to corrupt youth and increase eating disorders among younger generations.

Watch the video below of four recovered women sharing the harm Pro-ana/mia websites can inflict on someone struggling with an eating disorder.

According to Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Right, “[The right of freedom of expression may] be subject to certain restrictions…For the protection…of public order or of public health or morals.”  Pro-Ana/Mia websites portray anorexia and bulimia in a positive light and increase the likelihood of individuals who view them developing an eating disorder. This could be considered a danger to the overall public health, and gives government the incentive to block or censor them.

Pro-Ana supporters argue that the “thinspiration” movement gives individuals the opportunity to gain support and share tips with others who are experiencing the same thing, yet all of the exchanges on these sites seem to be negative. People motivate one another by saying things like they need lose more weight, and giving them tips on how to achieve that dream state of being virtually weightless and emaciated. The sites lack any positive effect on the community or individuals suffering with an illness. Therefore, they have little to argue regarding their need to stay accessible to the general public or their effect on the community.

Case Study: Valerie Boyer’s Bill (Ban on Pro-Ana)

A short clip from the documentary about the pro-anorexia movement in France, and the legislation to make it illegal:

France passed legislation in 2008 outlawing the portrayal of extreme thinness in the media as a desirable or positive trait. Additionally, Valerie Boyer, a  right-wing member of the lower house of Parliament, created a bill to enforce the elimination of Pro-Ana websites. The bill called for media outlets to face potential fines and possible jail time if they embraced the message that emaciation and eating disorders are attractive. The bill did not pass, yet it helped to draw more attention to the issue and awareness in both France and the United States has been increasing since the proposal. In the United States, servers such as Yahoo have worked to ban several pro-anorexia websites from their server.

Case Study: Social Media Bans Pro-Ana

In an effort to stop the glamorization of eating disorders throughout social media, Instagram, Pinterest, and Tumblr all updated their policies in 2012 to ban some of the attention that pro-ana websites receive online. Tumblr issued a statement outlining its plan to eliminate blogs that actively promote self-harm. If a user types in a trigger word such as “anorexia” on Tumblr, instead of receiving diet tips or images of emaciated models, a message urging you to seek assistance will appear. On Pinterest, although pro-anorexia images still exist  upon searching “anorexia”, results are displayed below the following message:

“Eating disorders are not lifestyle choices, they are mental disorders that if left untreated can cause serious health problems or could even be life-threatening. For treatment referrals, information, and support, you can always contact the National Eating Disorders Association Helpline at 1-800-931-2237 or www.nationaleatingdisorders.org”

Although more passive in nature, this message is meant to urge the user to recognize the dangers of the disorder, and to seek professional support as oppose to the negative motivation from others who suffer from a similar illness.

Instagram issued a new policy, to eliminate the promotion of self-harm on Instagram. The policy reads:

“Don’t promote or glorify self-harm:

1. “While Instagram is a place where people can share their lives with others through photographs and videos, any account found encouraging or urging users to embrace anorexia, bulimia, or other eating disorders; or to cut, harm themselves, or commit suicide will result in a disabled account without warning. We believe that communication regarding these behaviors in order to create awareness, come together for support and to facilitate recovery is important, but that Instagram is not the place for active promotion or glorification of self-harm.”

Instagram does not follow through with its former ban. When searching “anorexia” on Instagram, results display a long list of users who share photos of their gaunt collarbones, protruding hips, and non-existent  thighs. One photo, under the user “anorexianervosa_depression,” reads:

“Call it a sickness, call it an obsession, I don’t care, I call it perfection.”

There have been petitions to eliminate “thinspiration” tags on Twitter, yet when searched several photographs of overtly thin thighs and tiny waists appear. On Facebook, pages such as “Anorexia Tips” are easily accessible to anyone with an account. To see how websites measured up to their policy proposals, Buzzfeed compiled a list of all of social media sites efforts to ban pro-ana, and graded them based on how effectively they have eliminated the “thinspiration” movement across the web. Most of the sites received a low grade, in that most of them still permit much of the pro-anorexia community’s antics and do little to stop the community from continuing to infiltrate the social media stream.

Users have discovered loopholes. The bans do not necessarily stop users from continuing to post pro-ana material; in order to remain accessible, users can simply use different taglines in order for the material to appear when searched.The only way to truly minimize the value of the “thinspiration” movement is for people to stop liking the material, then it will eventually fade away.

Social media platforms run into some problems when they ban one type of body fad and not others, such as body building. Any extreme body manipulation could be considered a dangerous mental illness, therefore singling out a specific movement could cause the networks freedom of speech problems. To consider one group more dangerous than another becomes constitutionally complicated in that one group should not be favored over the other if they all do pose a potential threat to society. Eating disorders can be a very subjective experience and the line between the sharing of a personal experience and advocating for a disease is very thin. If pro-ana sites were to be censored or banned, would people who are simply telling their story be penalized?

The battle to remove these sites rages on between concerned medical experts and parents; yet pro-ana reigns on as a form of freedom of speech, and will continue to taint the minds of eating-disordered individuals until they are stopped.

Resources

Primary

DHS of Iowa: Pro-Anorexia/Pro-Bulimia Websites: A Dangerous Influence

Additional

ANAD: Eating Disorders and the Internet

Sociology of Health and Illness: Pro-anorexia, weight-loss drugs and the internet: an ‘anti-recovery’ explanatory model of anorexia

The New York Times: French legislators approve law against Web sites encouraging anorexia and bulimia

About Kids Health: Starved for attention: pro-anorexia websites glorify eating disorders

Body Space Society: Banning Pro-ANA Websites? NOt a Good Idea, As Web Censorship Might Have a ‘Toothpaste Tube Effect’

CBS: Despite social media bans of “pro-ana” websites, pages persist

Huffington Post: Why Blocking ‘Pro-Ana’ Sites Is a Bad Idea

Johns Hopkins University: Study Examines Pro-Anorexia and Pro-Bulimia Websites

Eating Disorders Recovery Today: Call to Ban Pro-Ana Websites

The New York Times: Point, Shoot, Retouch and Label?

PBS: Fighting social media ‘thinspiration’ with messages of self-acceptance

ABC: Pro-Anorexia ‘Thinspiration’ Photos Shouldn’t Be Banned from Social Media

Huffington Post: Can Thinspiration Really Be #Banned From Instagram?

 Debate: Should pro-anorexia websites be censored?

—

Madeleine Stern (@M3estern) is a student at George Mason University majoring in Journalism and minoring in Theater. Her writing on solitary confinement inspired her to pursue a graduate degree in clinical counseling after graduation. Madeleine is an avid runner, dedicated animal lover, and a children’s ballet instructor. Contact Madeleine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Evelina Zachariou via Flickr]

Madeleine Stern

Madeleine Stern attended George Mason University majoring in Journalism and minoring in Theater. Her writing on solitary confinement inspired her to pursue a graduate degree in clinical counseling after graduation. Madeleine is an avid runner, dedicated animal lover, and a children’s ballet instructor. Contact Madeleine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bones Are (Not) Better: The Battle to Ban Pro-Ana Websites appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-2 for an affirmative action ban on April 22 that was enacted by a Michigan constitutional amendment. Sonia Sotomayor, one of the two Justices who voted against the amendment, delivered a scathing dissent – 58 pages long – criticizing her colleagues’ affirmative ruling.

“As members of the judiciary tasked with intervening to carry out the guarantee of equal protection, we ought not sit back and wish away, rather than confront, the racial inequality that exists in our society. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination.” – Justice Sotomayor

Seven other states have similar constitutional amendments that ban the use of affirmative action in the higher education enrollment process. This ruling is particularly pertinent as there is evidence that minorities as a percentage of the study body is dropping at n colleges that have executed these affirmative action bans.

Sotomayor’s dissent was not met kindly, however, as Chief Justice Roberts rebuked her on the bench.

“To disagree with the dissent’s views on the costs and benefits of racial preferences is not to ‘wish away, rather than confront’ racial inequality … People can disagree in good faith on this issue, but it similarly does more harm than good to question the openness and candor of those on either side of the debate.” – Chief Justice Roberts

The main reason as to why the Court ruled in affirmation of Michigan’s ban on affirmative action was based on a disagreement over whether the courts had the correct jurisdiction to decide matters regarding these cases, and not by voters themselves choosing directly.

Considering the earlier ruling striking down Sections Two and Three of the Voting Rights Act, people may start to wonder how this Court is taking up issues that are racially controversial. Critics of the ruling say that the Bench is attempting to skirt history by ignoring continuing trends of racism, while supporters of the rulings say that time has simply passed by when racism was at its peak in America. Watching the Supreme Court is important at this point in time, as the country changes demographically in the coming years.

—

Dennis Futoryan (@dfutoryan) is an undergrad with an eye on a bright future in the federal government. Living in New York, he seeks to understand how to solve the problematic issues plaguing Gothamites, as well as educating the youngest generations on the most important issues of the day.

Featured image courtesy of [Tony Esopi via Wikipedia]

Dennis Futoryan

Dennis Futoryan is a 23-year old New York Law School student who has his sights set on constitutional and public interest law. Whenever he gets a chance to breathe from his law school work, Dennis can be found scouring social media and examining current events to educate others about what’s going on in our world. Contact Dennis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Justices Spar Over Affirmative Action Ban appeared first on Law Street.

Ever since Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum announced she would not defend her state’s ban on gay marriage, news coverage has been somewhat vague regarding what her announcement actually means.

Rosenblum joins attorneys general from five other states – Nevada, Virginia, Illinois, Pennsylvania and California – in refusal to support a state gay marriage ban, saying the law would fail to withstand a federal constitutional challenge. According to Rosenblum, while the ban will no longer be defended, it will continue to be enforced in Oregon unless overruled in court.

“State Defendants will not defend the Oregon ban on same-sex marriage in this litigation. Rather, they will take the position in their summary judgment briefing that the ban cannot withstand a federal constitutional challenge under any standard of review,” Rosenblum explained. “In the meantime, as the State Defendants are legally obligated to enforce the Oregon Constitution’s ban on same-sex marriage, they will continue to do so unless and until this Court grants the relief sought by the plaintiffs,” she added.

In simpler terms, Rosenblum, after careful study, has determined that the ban conflicts with federal law and will therefore no longer be defended by state attorneys. The word “defended” is typically where confusion arises.

Rosenblum’s decision was ultimately part of a brief filed with U.S. District Judge Michael McShane, who is currently presiding over a legal challenge to the state ban, which was added to the Oregon constitution in 2004.

In January 2014, Judge McShane consolidated two lawsuits filed by two different same-sex couples, both challenging Oregon’s ban on same-sex marriage. Both cases cite the 2013 Supreme Court case US v. Windsor, which established that the US federal interpretation of marriage could not exclusively apply to heterosexual unions.

So, what Rosenblum is effectively saying is that with regard to the current litigation (the consolidated lawsuit brought forth by the two sets of same-sex couples), the gay marriage ban will not be defended (by Oregon State Defendants) before the presiding federal judge (US District Judge McShane).

As The Oregonian points out, “Rosenblum’s action means that both the plaintiffs – who include four same-sex couples – and the main defendant in the case oppose the ban as unconstitutional.” Although it could take longer, Judge McShane is expected to issue a ruling in the coming spring or summer.

Since the Supreme Court ruling in June 2013, there has been a notable rise in nation-wide litigation over same-sex marriage, with state bans being overturned in four courts. At the moment, three of the four decisions are being held pending appeal.

While the issue of same-sex marriage remains divisive on a national level, Oregon is no exception.

“[Rosenblum] is shamefully abandoning her constitutional duty to defend the marriage amendment overwhelmingly enacted by the people of Oregon,” said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization of Marriage, in an interview with ABC News. “She swore an oath of office that she would enforce all the laws, not just those she personally agrees with,” he continued.

According to US Attorney General Eric Holder, however, Rosenblum has in no way overstepped her boundaries. In an interview with The New York Times, Holder said that “state attorneys general are not obligated to defend laws that they believe are discriminatory.” Holder made it clear that he was not encouraging Rosenblum and others to disregard state laws, but declared that “officials who have carefully studied bans on gay marriage could refuse to defend them.” “When laws touch on core constitutional issues like equal protection,” Holder continued, “an attorney general should apply the highest level of scrutiny before reaching a decision on whether to defend it.”

An admitted supporter of gay marriage, Rosenblum released her own statement saying “there is no rational basis for Oregon to refuse to honor the commitments made by same-sex couples in the same way it honors the commitments of opposite-sex couples.” Still, she insists personal opinion did not influence her decision.

Back in November 2004, when the state ban on gay marriage was enacted, 57 percent of Oregonians voted in favor of the ban. At the time, federal law banned recognition of same-sex couples. In ten years however, the political landscape has shifted and federal law has evolved.

“Because we cannot identify a valid reason for the state to prevent the couples who have filed these lawsuits from marrying in Oregon, we find ourselves unable to stand before (the federal judge) to defend the state’s prohibition against marriages between two men or two women,” Rosenblum said during a press conference.

Supporters of same-sex marriage hope Rosenblum’s decision is a step forward not only for the state of Oregon, but also for the country as a whole. According to Thomas Wheatley, director of organizing at Freedom to Marry, “the rapid momentum for the freedom to marry in states across the country underscores the understanding that the Constitution’s guarantee of the freedom to marry and equal protection under the law apply to gay and non-gay people alike.” “America – and Oregon – are ready for the freedom to marry,” he added.

In Oregon, supporters of gay marriage have nearly reached their goal of collecting enough signatures to put an initiative on the ballot that would ask voters to strike the ban on gay marriage from the state Constitution. Come November, voters will likely have a chance to weigh in on the issue.

[The Oregonian] [ABC News] [The Guardian] [Buzzfeed] [Bloomberg] [The Washington Post] [The New York Times]

—

Matt DiCenso (@mdicenso24)

Featured image courtesy of [Benson Kua via Flickr]

Matt DiCenso

Matt DiCenso is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s the Deal with Oregon Not Defending Its Own Gay Marriage Ban? appeared first on Law Street.

In a recent article, Three-month ban on Skype, Viber, and Whatsapp in Sindh Proposed published by Pakistan Today, Provincial Information Minister Sharjeel Memon stated,“terrorists and criminal elements are using these networks to communicate after the targeted operation was launched.” These comments were a reflection on the media ban that took place in the Sindh province of Pakistan on Thursday, October 3rd. Over a year before this most recent ban, Youtube was also expelled from all of Pakistan after a musical group criticizing the Pakistani government made it big on the social media platform. Other forms of social media have also often been chastised for lending to unorthodox muslim ideas about reform and government separation. The domination of Islam, already prevalent, is now infringing even more into public policy and the government of the nation.

In comparison, the Facebook ban in China has not stopped the Chinese from using it and the Pakistani Youtube suppression has not fully restricted the Pakistanis; it is only more challenging to access these sites. These bans do not limit everyone in the nation, just a specific demographic. Obviously, those of high socioeconomic standing or those who possess web knowledge will be able to bypass the system. It is the general middle class populace that gets affected by these bans the most. The purpose of controlling the social media networks, the Pakistani government claims, is to limit terrorist communications. If the Youtube ban from last year still allows use, the ban on social media websites is certainly not going to restrict a group of people who have access to much higher leveled technological resources. In 2011, Osama Bin Laden was found (and killed) in close proximity to a Kabul military base, highlighting the corruption of Pakistan. The question about whether Pakistan was involved with Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations compares to the question, “did O.J. murder his wife, Nicole?”. It is hard to believe that this sort of limitation will restrain the terrorist groups from communicating, if that is what the government actually wants. What, then, does the government want from this ban?

Moving our concentration a little west, Saudi Arabia is one of the most censored countries in the world. The news, although privatized, is still regulated by the government, as heads of the stations are appointed by the government. The content of the news distributed is also heavily regulated. A 2011 governmental decree forbade media from reporting anything that countered Sharia law or anything of “foreign interests and  that undermines national security,” Saudi Arabian King Abdullah stated. Is this what the future holds for Pakistan?

The role of social media has developed into something ineffable and so ingrained into culture. Larger than life, it led the on-going revolution in Egypt, connecting people with local and public information. What’s going on? What should we do? How do we do it? — these questions were asked and answered by the Egyptian locals, creating a large-scale community of people seeking change. The revolution reflected on the power social media holds. Realizing this, in a failed attempt to stop the riots, the Egyptian government blocked the social media sites and mobile phone networks, taking away full internet access. The result was only more anger from the public. Perhaps, Pakistan is trying to learn from Egypt’s mistake by blinding their people before they widen their eyes and realize the full potential of their tools.

As of now the social media prohibition in Sindh is suppose to last three months to limit terrorist communication. Recent history and personal speculation leads me to believe otherwise.

[pakistantoday] [France24]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Jason Howle via Flickr]

Vasudha Sadana

The post New Type of Warfare: Social Media vs. Government appeared first on Law Street.

The New York appeals court on Tuesday upheld the ruling that Mayor Bloomberg’s ban on large sugary drinks is unconstitutional.  In a unanimous decision, the court ruled that the law “violated the state principle of separation of powers.”  The ban would have prohibited the sale of sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces in restaurants throughout the city.  The appeals court decision came after a New York Supreme Court Justice ruled that the ban was “arbitrary and capricious.”

Bloomberg has recently issued several executive orders and initiatives in an attempt to improving the health of New Yorkers, including mandating that all chain restaurants publicize calorie counts; promoting the use of stairways rather than elevators; and even an attempt to raise the age to buy cigarettes from 18 to 21.  Although he has faced several challenges to his health initiatives, he remains committed to improving the health and well-being of all New Yorkers.

[NY Daily News]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Kevin via Flickr]

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 NYC Large Drink Ban Still Unconstitutional appeared first on Law Street.