A Milo Yiannopoulos supporter filed a lawsuit on Monday against regents of the University of California, Berkeley for $23 million. Kiara Robles, the plaintiff, says the school infringed on her First Amendment rights when a protest erupted on campus last February.

The protest, which drew over 1,500 students, was a response to the controversial invitation the Berkeley College Republicans student group sent to Yiannopoulos, asking him to speak at the campus. Yiannopoulos, a long-standing fan of President Donald Trump and a self-described cultural libertarian, is a former senior editor of alt-right media source Breitbart.

He gained prominence because of his highly controversial comments on women, Islam, homosexuality, and religion. He once said “gay rights have made us dumber” and called transgender people mentally ill.

Robles was pepper-sprayed during the Berkeley protest and says she and her friends were targeted during the clash because they hold and express conservative views. She was planning on attending Yiannopoulos’ talk before the Berkeley police department canceled the event citing security concerns.

More peaceful protests mad at capitalism. #miloatcal pic.twitter.com/1qrdJ5zeJ8

— Kiara Robles ಠ_ಠ (@kiarafrobles) February 2, 2017

https://twitter.com/kiarafrobles/status/827418775230099456

The lawsuit states that the defendants, which includes local law enforcement, billionaire George Soros, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi for allegedly institutionalizing Robles’ concerns, have subjected “students and invitees who do not subscribe to the radical, left wing philosophies … to severe violence and bodily harm for merely expressing a differing viewpoint.”

“She was assaulted,” Robles’ lawyer told The San Francisco Chronicle on Wednesday. “The California university system, and in part, Berkeley, is out of control, and they’re facilitating, if not inciting, violence, and the campus police sit around twiddling their thumbs.”

The university said in a statement that it will mount a strong defense “contesting this collection of false claims.”

This lawsuit comes at a time when freedom of speech debates are increasingly common on college campuses and the media. Liberal students’ requests for “safe spaces” and outright bans on perceived hate speech have raised questions regarding whether or not other students’ freedom of expression rights are being curtailed.

Hitting at the heart of the debate and opposing Robles, Jonathan Gow, a UC Berkeley sophomore, said “when it’s hate speech, our free speech is to shut him down,” about the Yiannopoulos protests at Berkeley.

Last Friday, late-night talk show host Bill Maher, who said he would soon invite Yiannopoulos back on his show, was caught up in a similar controversy when he said the N-word on live television. Many outraged viewers called for his show to be canceled or for him to step down, while others said self-censorship of this word placed a limitation on individual freedom of speech.

Yiannopoulos has often found himself at the center of these debates, on and off campuses. Recently, he announced he would resort to self-publishing his new book “Dangerous” after the provocateur lost his controversial Simon and Schuster book deal when videos surfaced of him seemingly defending pedophilia. On Tuesday, the book was at the top of Amazon’s best-seller list in the humor category.

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 Milo Yiannopoulos Fan Sues UC Berkeley Over Violent February Protests 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:

White House Criticized for Promoting Mar-a-Lago

In a blog post from April 4, the U.S. State Department promoted Mar-a-Lago as “Trump’s Florida estate,” and claimed that by visiting “this ‘winter White House,’ Trump is belatedly fulfilling the dream of Mar-a-Lago’s original owner and designer.” After Trump was elected president, the Florida resort doubled its membership fee to $200,000. The blog post received renewed attention on Monday after it was featured on the website of the U.S. embassy in London, as well as several other U.S. embassies. Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden asked on Twitter why taxpayer money is “promoting the president’s private country club.” President Obama’s chief ethics attorney, Norman Eisen, called it “exploitation” and said that this behavior needs to be stopped. Eisen is also part of a group of attorneys who have already sued Trump for an alleged violation of the emoluments clause, which states that a president can’t accept gifts or payments from foreign states without approval from Congress.

Yes, I am curious @StateDept. Why are taxpayer $$ promoting the President’s private country club? pic.twitter.com/IlPhUlvMwa

— Ron Wyden (@RonWyden) April 24, 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 RantCrush Top 5: April 25, 2017 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:

The Search for Steve Stephens Continues

Police officers in Cleveland are looking for a suspect who fatally shot an elderly man yesterday and shared the murder on Facebook. The suspect, Steve Stephens, claimed that he was going to kill more people and police have warned the public against approaching him, as he is armed and dangerous. He is believed to have left the state and the warning has been expanded to the whole Midwest.

Cleveland police chief says they know Steve Stephens is out there: “We talked to him via cell phone.” pic.twitter.com/Hwxn4oL9jK

— Fox News (@FoxNews) April 17, 2017

The disturbing Facebook video has been taken down, but reportedly it showed Stephens driving in his car, complaining about a woman, and then saying he found somebody to kill as he approached an elderly black man. That man was later identified as Robert Godwin Sr. He was 74 years old. Stephens made Godwin say the woman’s name and then told him, “She’s the reason, uh, this is about to happen to you,” before shooting him. Authorities found no links between Stephens and Godwin.

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: April 17, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Tomorrow is, technically speaking, Columbus Day. But that’s not what it’s called everywhere, as cities across the United States are moving toward calling the day Indigenous Peoples Day.

The first city to abolish the name “Columbus Day” was Berkeley, California in 1992. Since then, there’s been a slow trickle of additional towns and counties changing the name. Other places that have renamed the holiday since Berkeley’s landmark decision include Seattle, Minneapolis, and South Dakota. This year, eight major cities and counties–Albuquerque, New Mexico; Lawrence, Kansas; Portland, Oregon; St. Paul, Minnesota; Bexar County, Texas; Anadarko, Oklahoma; Olympia, Washington; and Alpena, Michigan–all began celebrating Indigenous Peoples day.

Indigenous Peoples Day aims to recognize the fact that the indigenous people that Columbus encountered were often subject to horrible treatment, abuse, and disease. Estimates put the percent of the native population killed upon European arrival in the Americas at 90 percent. Those who argue for Indigenous Peoples Day also do so in recognition of the fact that discrimination has continued against indigenous people even in recent years. The native population in the United States still has to contend with poverty, health issues, income inequality, and racism. As Melanie Yazzie, co-founder of a group called Red Nation, one of the organizations pushing to name the holiday Indigenous Peoples Day, explained:

It is important because the second Monday in October is officially recognized nationally and even internationally as Columbus Day. As countless people have pointed out over the past decades of trying to abolish Columbus Day, it is a holiday created to celebrate the genocide of Native people. This is experienced by Native people as a violent event that has not ended. We still live under a sort of colonialism here, at least in the United States

Change Columbus Day to #IndigenousPeoplesDay #BoycottColumbusDay pic.twitter.com/yu5MyPbN1u

— #IndigenousPeopleDay (@marthauprise) October 3, 2015

No, we should not celebrate #ColumbusDay! – #AntiColumbus #IndigenousPeoplesDay #AntiColumbusDay pic.twitter.com/71oZqQW1Xn — Kathrin Sapiha (@KathrinSapiha) October 11, 2015

However, the quest to rename Columbus Day as Indigenous Peoples Day has been a struggle, largely promoted through lobbying at the local level. It stands contrary to the view of history that many Americans have, in which Columbus’s arrival in the New World is celebrated. Moreover, it is just a symbolic movement–there’s still a lot of work that needs to be done to improve the lives of native people. However, it’s certainly a step in the right direction–Columbus Day may become a relic of the past very soon, and for good reason.

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 Columbus Day vs. Indigenous Peoples Day: A Campaign for Change appeared first on Law Street.

Last week’s top stories ran the gamut from cheating spouses to the best places to get a joint J.D./M.B.A degree. The top story of the week was a breakdown of the strangest arrests making the news, followed by a look at the Ashley Madison hack and the future of online privacy. The #3 story was the J.D./M.B.A. ranking for the University of California-Berkeley School of Law. ICYMI, check out the top posts from last week:

#1 Weird Arrests of the Week

It’s the end of the week, which means its time to relax and reflect on all the stupid things people have done this week. Specifically, some fantastically odd arrests. Check out the slideshow here.

#2 Ashley Madison Hack: The Future of Online Privacy Doesn’t Look Good

A few weeks ago, a group of hackers called the “Impact Team” threatened to expose the profiles of people who had accounts on Ashley Madison, a dating site specifically aimed at married people who are looking to cheat. The hackers threatened to “release customer records, including profiles with all the customers’ secret sexual fantasies and matching credit card transactions, real names and addresses, and employee documents and emails” if the site was not taken down. The parent company–Avid Life Media–did not comply, and now that data has been released to the public. Read the full story here.

#3 Top 10 Schools for J.D./M.B.A. Programs: #9 University of California-Berkeley School of Law

The legal industry is changing and law schools are no exception. Applications and enrollment are both down, and the value of the traditional legal education with its current price tag is the subject of continual debate. Law Street Specialty Rankings are a detailed resource for prospective law students as they consider the many law schools across the country. Law Street Specialty Rankings blend the quantitative and qualitative in a way that accurately highlights the top law schools based on specialty programs. Check out the University of California-Berkeley School of Law’s ranking here.

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 ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

There’s long been a debate in this country over soft drinks. Health advocates see soft drinks as liquid fuel for our national obesity epidemic, but many freedom loving Americans don’t like being told what chemically engineered beverages they can or can’t pour into their bodies. Hell, we as a country can’t even decide what to call it. Is it pop, soda, or coke? The answer to that question depends on what part of the country you’re from. But don’t expect the battle over sugary soft drinks to fizz out anytime soon. There’s now a new battleground for that fight in California.

It’s been a long time coming. First, ex-New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg tried to limit the size of sodas sold in NYC establishments to no more than 16 oz. Beverage buffs nipped that mandate in the bud, and it was declared unconstitutional in court. Next, in an effort to curb unhealthy diets while funding the city, 75 percent of Berkeley, California voters approved the country’s first soda tax last fall. That tax took effect at the beginning of the new year. It imposed a tax of one cent per ounce on distributors of specified sugar-sweetened beverages such as soda, sports drinks, energy drinks, and sweetened iced teas.

Now the California legislature is on the offensive. California Senate Majority Leader Bill Monning introduced a proposal Wednesday to put warning labels (similar to those already on alcohol and cigarettes) on any beverages containing added sweeteners with at least 75 calories per 12 ounces. According to the Huffington Post, the labels would read:

STATE OF CALIFORNIA SAFETY WARNING: Drinking beverages with added sugar(s) contributes to obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay.

Tooth decay. Obesity. Diabetes. Yeah, seeing that every time I look at a can of coke might make me pick up a bottle of H2O instead. This isn’t the first time Monning has tried guilt his constituents into making healthier choices. Last year, his warning label bill narrowly passed the Senate but died in the Assembly Committee on Health after a strong lobbying effort from the soda industry. However, this time his bill may see fruition.

In a press release Monning states:

Given the rock solid scientific evidence showing the dangers of sugary beverages, the State of California has a responsibility to inform consumers about products proven to be harmful to the public’s health. This bill will give Californians the at-a-glance information they need to make more healthful choices every day.

Some opponents don’t see the necessity of the warning labels when ultimately the decision to drink or not drink is up to the individual. CalBev, the California arm of the American Beverage Association, said in a statement:

Putting government warning labels on more than 500 beverages will do nothing to change personal behaviors or teach people about healthy lifestyles. The last thing California needs is more warning labels.

Soda companies will likely try to block the bill once more rather than face any potential loss in sales, but stopping it yet again may prove harder with the added momentum garnered from Berkeley. I’m putting my bets on California adding these labels to sugary drinks eventually.

Alexis Evans

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

The post California Bill Aims to Put Warning Labels on Sugary Drinks appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here to read more coverage on Law Street’s Law School Specialty Rankings 2014.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of [Alan Cordova via Flickr]

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 Top 10 Law Schools for Environmental & Energy Law: #6 University of California Berkeley School of Law appeared first on Law Street.

Lately, we’ve been hearing more and more about the mishandling of sexual assaults on college campuses. Although these allegations span years, sexual assault on college campuses is by no means a new conversation. The recent wave of outrage and advocacy began with a courageous young woman named Angie Epifano. Angie was a student at Amherst College in Massachusetts when she was raped by an acquaintance. She received little to no help from the University, and eventually published a first hand account in The Amherst Student, the student newspaper on campus. Her entire, heart-wrenching story is here (trigger warning), but the gist is that the school that she trusted institutionalized, discounted, and questioned her every move instead of providing her with appropriate and much needed resources.

The University of Connecticut, located in the sleepy northeastern countryside, has also come under fire for how they have handled sexual assault cases. Victims claim that UConn didn’t help them, and that they were discouraged from reporting the rapes to the police. One young woman, Rosemary Richie, who was raped by a football player, claims officials at UConn did not believe her.

There are stories after stories after stories on almost every single college campus in the country. Take Amanda Tripp, at the University of Indianapolis. She filed a report that she was raped on November 26, 2012. When she saw a copy almost 2 months later, the police had written, “a crime did not occur” on it. No one ever followed up with her. Or how about Landen Gambill? She reported being sexually assaulted by an ex-boyfriend. The UNC honor court subsequently found him not guilty. She was then charged herself, accused of creating an “intimidating and hostile” environment for the man who had assaulted her by charging him with such assault. Regardless of whether or not he was actually guilty, a young woman should never be scared that she might get in trouble with the school if she reports a crime.

The numbers speak for themselves: at least 1 in 4 women in college will be the victim of a sexual assault during their time in school. Colleges need to be able to provide resources for that 25% of their female population that is attacked. But as we’ve seen time after time after time, this often is not the case.

Now, these women are fighting back. The Title IX Network —an informal network of activists–has helped women at multiple schools file federal claims against the universities. The Title IX Network bills itself as “working to support all survivors, to change how colleges and universities handle sexual assault, and to change a culture where violence is normalized.” Most recently these include Amherst, UConn, and Vanderbilt University; earlier this year claims were filed against UNC, Occidental, Swarthmore, UC Boulder, Dartmouth, USC, Berkeley, and Emerson.

The complaints have been filed under both Title IX and Clery Act provisions. Title IX states that universities have a responsibility to take immediate and effective steps when allegations of sexual violence are brought forth. Under Title IX, the Department of Education can impose fines or block access to federal funds. The Clery Act requires schools to accurately disclose crimes that occur on campus. By not handling and reporting these allegations of sexual assault properly, the universities against whom complaints have been levied may be in violation.

Something has to change. Twenty-five percent of young women, twenty-five percent of my peers, should not be assaulted in the environments in which they are supposed to learn and grow. If these charges lead to any sort of change in the abhorrent way universities have been handling this issue, I say more power to the Title IX network.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead 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.

Featured image courtesy of [Wolfram Burner via Flickr]

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 Title IX Complaints Against Universities Grow appeared first on Law Street.