A chilling new public service announcement reveals how devastatingly easy it is to overlook the warning signs of gun violence.

Sandy Hook Promise produced this powerful film about the issue of gun violence. @SandyHook pic.twitter.com/YxdTgTtnLJ

— Eric Alper (@ThatEricAlper) December 4, 2016

The eye-opening two and a half minute video was produced by Sandy Hook Promise, a nonprofit group founded by the families of Sandy Hook victims, as part of its “Know the Signs” campaign.

In the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, the group formed with the intent to “honor all victims of gun violence by turning our tragedy into a moment of transformation by providing programs and practices that protect children and prevent the senseless, tragic loss of life.”

Nicole Hockley, co-founder and managing director of Sandy Hook Promise, lost her son Dylan, a first-grader, in the Sandy Hook massacre four years ago this month. Hockley told Ad Week:

When you don’t know what to look for, or can’t recognize what you are seeing, it can be easy to miss warning signs or dismiss them as unimportant. That can lead to tragic consequences.

The powerful ad concludes with the message, “Gun violence is preventable when you know the signs.” People Magazine summarized six potential warning signs listed in Sandy Hook Promise’s “Know the Signs Guide”:

1. School shooters typically exhibit a strong fascination or obsession with firearms.

2. School shooters often overreact or act out aggressively for seemingly minor reasons.

3. Perpetrators of self-harm or violence towards others may be victims of prolonged bullying and may also have real of perceived feelings of being picked on or persecuted by others.

4. These students also usually study firearm techniques and training, and are equally fascinated by mass shootings.

5. School shooters almost always have unsupervised, illegal or easy access to firearms, and often brag about such access.

6. One should also look for gestures of violence and low commitment or aspirations towards school, or a sudden change in academic performance.

Sandy Hook Promise states that 80 percent of school shooters and 70 percent of individuals who committed suicide told someone of their violent plans prior to taking action—yet nobody intervened.

“It is important for us to show youth and adults that they are not helpless in protecting their community from gun violence—these acts are preventable when you know the signs. Everyone has the power to intervene and get help. These actions can save lives, ” added Hockley.

Bryan White

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

The post Sandy Hook Families Release Chilling Anti-Gun Violence PSA appeared first on Law Street.

Fashion is meant to be a form of self expression, but if you’re currently a teenage girl in high school that expression might be seriously limited due to strict dress code restrictions. Of course making sure there are no visible butt cracks, nipples, or genitals is a must for school administrators, but when bare shoulders, backs, and thighs are considered just as taboo there’s a serious problem. In the past week alone I’ve read two stories about obscene dress code restrictions and sexist double standards in both the New York Times and Buzzfeed that call for some rant worthy commentary.

Now about 100 years ago it was positively scandalous for a woman to show a bare ankle in public, but it’s not the Victorian era anymore. Unlike the oppressed women back then, we have the right to vote, serve in the military, obtain an education, and take birth control, just for starters. So you’d think that with all of these advancements in women’s rights, women would have the right to decide for themselves what to wear, right? Wrong.

The New York Times wrote a very interesting piece discussing the issue after speaking with high schools girls who were told by administrators that the expensive dresses they’d purchased for prom weren’t acceptable and either needed to be altered or they wouldn’t be permitted to attend. In their piece Kristin Hussey and Marc Santora write:

Girls have been told to cover up shoulders, knees and backs. They have been reprimanded for partially exposed stomachs and thighs and excessive cleavage. They have been ordered to wear jackets, ordered to go home and suspended.

For one girl in the article, that meant a dress and alterations that cost $400 on top of the $90 prom ticket. Some schools have even begun to require girls to take pictures of their gowns and submit them to administrators for approval before they’re even able to buy a ticket to the dance. When asked why the rules are so strict, one superintendent they spoke with said “We want our young ladies to be dressed beautifully; we want them to be dressed with class and dignity. But we are going to draw the line relative to attire that would be deemed overexposing oneself.”

This idea that schools need to protect girls from overexposing themselves isn’t restricted to just the U.S. Take 17-year-old Canadian teen Laura Wiggins, for example. Laura looked in her closet one morning and decided she wanted to wear a full-length halter dress to her high school in New Brunswick. Her legs weren’t showing. Her belly button wasn’t hanging out. Her breasts weren’t on display. The ensemble did, however, showcase her bare arms and a semi-bare back.

A Canadian Teen Wrote The Best Rebuttal After Getting Detention For Wearing A Halter Dress http://t.co/hS4WHTHsf0 pic.twitter.com/hfZSXjghbB

— BuzzFeed Canada (@BuzzFeedCanada) May 13, 2015

That was apparently enough for Laura to receive a detention for being a “sexual distraction” to her male classmates, because if there’s anything that gets a teenage boy all hot and bothered, it’s a back. Isn’t that what Justin Timberlake meant when he said he was “bringing sexy back?”

But it’s the way that Laura dealt with the situation that is truly amazing. Instead of taking the detention quietly, she chose to write a letter to her school’s vice principal and it was very eloquent, impressive, and inspiring. I won’t quote the whole badass letter, but here are two passages that particularly stood out to me:

In today’s society, a woman’s body is constantly discriminated against and hypersexualized to the point where we can no longer wear the clothing that we feel comfortable in without the accusation and/or assumption that we are being provocative.[…]

Then she continues with,

So no, Mr. Sturgeon, I will not search for something to cover up my back and shoulders because I am not showing them off with the intention to gain positive sexual feedback from the teenage boys in my school. I am especially not showing them to receive any comments, positive or negative, from anybody else besides myself because the only person who can make any sort of judgment on my body and the fabrics I place on it is me.

So instead of focusing on what causes boys to be “distracted” my advice to schools would be to try teaching them self control. These young men will need that in the real world, especially with all these empowered girls walking around in yoga pants everywhere.

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 Are Schools Going Too Far with These Dress Code Rules? appeared first on Law Street.

Last week I wrote an article about gaming convention Gen Con threatening to take their expo elsewhere if Indiana Governor Mike Pence signed Senate Bill 101 into law. Gov Pence appeared unphased by the threat of losing big business, quietly signing the controversial bill into law last Thursday. Now three states have joined a list of notable celebrities, politicians, and corporate execs speaking out against the governor’s decision by banning state-funded travel to the state. These actions have resulted in Pence’s announcement that he will work this week to clarify the law so that it does not legalize discrimination.

The bill, which becomes effective July 1, 2015, would prevent individuals in the state from being forced by government entities to violate their religious beliefs. Contention has spawned from critics saying the bill will extend protection to businesses to legally discriminate against LGBT patrons by refusing them service. In a press conference this morning the governor addressed critics, announcing that he will work to fix the law by asking the state assembly to clarify that businesses do not have the right to deny service to anyone; he has no plans to make the state legislation disappear.

When news surfaced that Pence had privately signed the bill, it didn’t take long for a slew of celebrities and public officials to begin voicing their outrage via social media.

Apple is open for everyone. We are deeply disappointed in Indiana’s new law and calling on Arkansas Gov. to veto the similar #HB1228.

— Tim Cook (@tim_cook) March 27, 2015

Indiana’s anti-gay ‘Religious Freedom’ bill signed by Gov. Pence is absurd & insulting. This is 2015. Ridiculous. #RFRA — Larry King (@kingsthings) March 27, 2015

When will conservatives like Mike Pence figure out discriminating against #lgbt under the guise of faith is REALLY bad politics?

— Montel Williams (@Montel_Williams) March 26, 2015

Yesterday, states began taking action against the “anti-gay” bill by banning state-funded travel to Indiana. Connecticut became the first state to boycott Indiana over its Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) when Governor Dan Malloy signed an executive order barring state-funded travel to the state. Malloy announced his decision with the following tweets:

When new laws turn back the clock on progress, we can’t sit idly by. We are sending a message that discrimination won’t be tolerated. -DM

— Governor Dan Malloy (@GovMalloyOffice) March 30, 2015

Two other cities, San Francisco and Seattle, joined Connecticut by imposing similar travel bans in response to the bill. A list of businesses, following in the steps of Gen Con, have also begun to reconsider doing business with the state. Some notable opposition includes Angie’s List, which decided to halt a campus-expansion project in Indianapolis, and $4 billion software corporation Salesforce, whose CEO announced plans to “dramatically reduce our investment” in the state. PayPal co-founder Max Levchin, who also opposes the law, sent a message to his corporate peers telling CNN:

I’m asking my fellow CEOs to look at how they’re thinking about their relationship with the state and evaluate it in terms of the legislation that’s getting signed into law.

Indiana is hardly the first state to introduce RFRA laws; there are currently 20 states that have done so. However, Indiana’s law is “substantially different” according to the Huffington Post, which writes:

While other state RFRAs apply to disputes between a person and a government, Indiana’s law goes further and applies to disputes between private citizens. That means, for example, a business owner could use the law to justify discrimination against customers who might otherwise be protected under law.

The publicity from the bill has cast a negative light on the state, but a coalition of independent merchants in Indiana have joined a new campaign showing support for the LGBT community called Open For Service. Participating companies want customers to know that the bill won’t change the way they do business. The campaign celebrates businesses that oppose discrimination of any type, allowing companies to register with them and order stickers to be displayed in shop windows that read “this business serves everyone.”

The combination of this campaign with the current efforts of celebrities, politicians, and big CEOs are what most likely caused Pence to announce that his office will finally take action. No word yet on what will happen to the religious freedom law if the assembly fails to produce Pence’s requested joint anti-discrimination law this week, but at least the governor is finally attempting, albeit very poorly, to assure citizens that Indiana will be welcome to all.

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 Backlash Over Discriminatory Indiana Law Forces Governor to Clarify appeared first on Law Street.

Continuing down the northeast corridor this week, the dumbest laws continue to not disappoint.

Connecticut may be home to some of the most intelligent people in the world thanks to the presence of many Ivy League universities. This doesn’t stop it, however, from also being home to many stupid laws. Until recently, buying alcohol in Connecticut was a bit tricky. Although it was recently repealed, there was once a law that you could not buy alcohol after nine at night or on Sundays. And perhaps as a means of preventing road rage from getting out of hand, Connecticut lawmakers made it illegal to discharge a firearm from a highway.

In Rocky Hill you’ll find your selection of games a bit limited at the arcades, as only four amusement devices are permitted inside of them. Yes, some Connecticut cities just love raining on peoples’ parades. In Southington, silly string is banned. Yes, SILLY STRING! A staple of many a childhood, BANNED!

Many Massachusetts laws deemed stupid actually make sense to me. For example, it is illegal to give beer to hospital patients. I mean, I’d hope so! Speaking of alcohol, candy may not contain more than one percent of the stuff. This is also logical, if you ask me. We don’t need a bunch of kids (or adults, for that matter) bumbling around drunk after a mad candy binge. Halloween would be a nightmare otherwise!

Massachusetts doesn’t want to take any chances regarding gun users turning to killers. At shooting ranges in the state, targets may not resemble human beings. The state seems to be anti-violence in general as public boxing matches are illegal.

Considering its tiny size, I was blown away by the length of the list of dumb Rhode Island laws. Professional sports teams have a few hoops through which to jump in Rhode Island if they want to play on Sunday. There, every sport except ice polo and hockey must obtain a special license to play on that day. Also, business owners and sports coaches must be aware of a special law regarding the special day: “Exercising any labor, business, or work, or using any game, sport, play, or recreation, or causing any of the above to be done to or by your children, servants, or apprentices on the first day of the week results in a penalty of $5 for the first offense and $10 for the second.” With fines like that, you wouldn’t want to take any chances.

Seriously, Rhode Island. Chill.

If every Rhode Island driver adhered to the law the roads would be a loud mess, as one is required to make a loud noise prior to passing on the left. At least you won’t encounter any horse owners testing the speed of their steed on the highways. In Rhode Island, “riding a horse over any public highway for the purpose of racing, or testing the speed of the horse is illegal.”

I’ve heard of impersonating police officers, but impersonating an auctioneer? Well, it must have been a problem in Rhode Island at some point as it made it illegal to impersonate a town sealer, auctioneer, corder of wood, or a fence-viewer. And if you find yourself in some sort of quarrel with someone else, be aware that it is illegal to bite off his or her leg.

And be very careful in Scituate: you’ll need to transport beer from the liquor store or other place of purchase to your home in something other than your car because it is illegal to have it in your car even if it is unopened.

Phew, that was exhausting! So many dumb laws, so little time…

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dumbest Laws of the United States: Connecticut, Rhode Island, & Mass appeared first on Law Street.

Lawsuits, crime, and drugs ruled the news last week and the most popular articles at Law Street were no exception. The #1 article of the week, from Anneliese Mahoney, detailed the suit over royalties earned by “50 Shades of Gray” won by a woman in Texas; #2, also from Mahoney, covers the explosive news out of Chicago that there is a secret ‘black site’ where Americans are held outside of the justice system; and #3, from Alexis Evans, is the story from Wesleyan University where nearly a dozen students were hospitalized in apparent Molly overdoses. ICYMI, here is the Best of the Week from Law Street.

#1 Texas Woman Wins Big “50 Shades of Grey” Royalties Lawsuit

It seems like one of the most popular topics of conversation these days is the movie version of the erotic novel sensation “Fifty Shades of Grey.” (Spoiler alert: It’s really bad. I went hoping to make fun of it and have a few laughs, and it was too awful to even laugh at.) But one woman may be laughing soon–laughing all the way to the bank, that is. An Arlington, Texas woman named Jennifer Lynn Pedroza just won a major “Fifty Shades” related lawsuit. Read full article here.

#2 Chicago “Black Site” Allegations Yet Another Example of Police Brutality

News of a secret detention facility in Chicago broke this week and it’s sparking horror and outrage across the country. This “black site,” revealed by the Guardian, is a nightmare image straight out of a post-apocalyptic movie. People are “arrested” and taken to this site, which is inside a warehouse in Chicago’s Homan Square. Then they are subjected to inhumane treatment. They aren’t afforded the rights that the U.S. Constitution promises all of us. Read full article here.

#3 Mass Molly Overdose Hospitalized 11 Wesleyan Students

Connecticut’s Wesleyan University was flooded with sirens Sunday night as almost a dozen students were rushed to hospitals after reportedly overdosing on the party drug commonly known as Molly, or MDMA. The exact number of alleged victims varies, with police reporting that 11 students were hospitalized for the drug, while Wesleyan University President Michael S. Roth reported the figure as ten students and two visitors in a letter sent to students Monday morning. Read full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

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

With the widespread use of cellphones emerging in the late 1990s, the last few generations have been the first to have their every move documented for public consumption. Since then, cellphones have been ever present at many important events: proms, graduations, college orientation, and for first relationships. Still, within the last decade or so, cell phones changed from portable phones to portable computers with cameras attached, giving people the ability to take, edit, and share photos instantaneously. This ability has led to an increase in something known as “sexting,” defined as “sending nude, sexual or indecent photos (or ‘selfies’) using a computer, mobile phone or other mobile device.” In some cases, it can also include written messages or even videos.

Some states have adopted laws that have severe penalties aimed at teenagers who send, receive, or save such photos. These laws are not as severe as if they were legal adults possessing photos of an underage teen, but they are still serious consequences of which to be aware.

Dawn of a New Legal Era

Sexting laws are a relatively new concept, so that’s why they are somewhat murky to most Americans. Since 2009, many states have adopted teen sexting laws, and each year more states consider bills on the issue. States that already have laws include: Wyoming, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York, and Indiana. Several other states are also considering introducing sexting laws through their legislatures. Most states focus on teen sexting, though there are a few that also legislate other aspects of the activity. As teen sexting spreads and becomes a worry among parents, it’s probable that these laws will be adopted on a wider scale. That doesn’t mean that it is entirely legal in those states without sexting laws, however. In the states without any sexting laws, teens who sext may still see consequences as a result of the pre-existing laws that target child pornography.

What are states doing about teen sexting?

There are some states that have adopted laws specifically for sexting. These laws have explicitly targeted the images sent among teenagers. For example, Connecticut’s sexting law targets teens who create, save, or spread photos of themselves or others.

Here’s an example of how Pennsylvania approaches sexting, as it is illegal for teens ages 12-17 to posses the naked photo of another person in the same age range. According to a Criminal Defense Lawyer resource page:

For example, both a teen who sends a photo of a nude classmate and one who receives the photo could be prosecuted under Pennsylvania law. Teen sexting is punished more severely if the defendant takes or shares a nude photo of another teen without the teen’s permission, and in order to harass that person or cause him or her emotional distress. For example, a boy who shares nude photos of his ex-girlfriend after they break up could be charged with a more serious crime. Pennsylvania’s teen sexting law does not apply to images taken or distributed for commercial purposes, or images of sexual intercourse, penetration, or masturbation, or any other hardcore sexual images.

State laws differ significantly, however, depending on things like ages of majority and previous cases. Louisiana won’t allow anyone under 17 to send or keep pictures. Texas is one of the states that makes some allowances: if the minor sexts another minor, it’s not considered a crime, as long as the recipient’s age is within two years of the sender and the exchange is consensual.

For more information on your state, visit Mobile Safeguard’s Comprehensive list.

What do you do if someone sends this type of message to you?

Teen sexting laws prohibit both sending and receiving explicit images, which can be quite a gray area for some people, as well as some courts. How can you stop someone from sending you a photo? There’s a definite difference between requesting a picture and simply receiving one from another teen. The difference also comes from what you do when you get that picture.

Because of the grayness and the ability for sabotage, sexting laws typically prohibit “receiving and keeping” any explicit images. This means that if a teen or adult receives an image from a teen, the receiver must delete the message immediately in order to avoid legal trouble. To protect oneself, it would also be a good idea for the recipient to send a message stating that the image is not wanted or requested.

Federal Law and Sexting

Depending on the circumstances of the images in question, sexting may also be a crime under federal law.

According to Criminal Defense Lawyer:

Depending on the circumstances, sexting may also be a crime under federal law.

The Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today (PROTECT) Act of 2003 makes it illegal to produce, distribute, receive, or possess with intent to distribute any obscene visual depiction of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Knowing possession of such material—without intent to distribute—is also a crime under the PROTECT Act. (18 U.S.C. § 1466A(a)(1).)

Federal law also criminalizes causing a minor to take part in sexually explicit conduct in order to visually depict that conduct. Parents who allow this behaviorcan also be prosecuted. (18 U.S.C. § 2251.)

That doesn’t mean that we’ll likely see federal prosecution of juveniles for sexting. The Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act (FJDA) generally posits that, where possible, juvenile cases should remain in state courts.

What happens in states that don’t have sexting laws?

For those states that do not specifically legislate against sexting, the act is usually covered under child pornography laws. This includes creating, possessing, or distributing the photos of anyone underage. This means that the child who takes the picture can be in legal trouble. Many people question the punishment for these young children, especially when they may have been coerced into sending the photos. There has been much debate about what the penalties should be for teenagers who send those photos. Some think they should not face the same penalties as those who are over 18, especially because it can impact everything from college choices to potential careers and living situations. Those who argue against this type of treatment want some of the lesser penalties listed below for teens who are caught sexting.

What are the possible penalties for sexting?

The penalties for teen sexting involve a lot of red tape, juvenile and adult courts, and also include various criminal laws. Overall there is a lot of coordination required anytime there are juveniles in the justice system, which is why some states have specific laws against sexting. Usually, it takes a contentious case to prompt the creation of a specific law.

Juveniles

When a juvenile commits a criminal offense through sexting, that offense is typically handled by the juvenile court system. Juvenile courts have wider discretion in the kinds of penalties they impose. Some of the penalties could include a warning, fines, having to serve community service, completing counseling, probation, or even a sentence to a juvenile facility.

Adults

If the person is 18 or older, he or she will be charged as an adult and could face incarceration, fines, or being entered onto the sex offender registry.

Conclusion

What many consider to be fun and harmless flirting online or over the phone can actually become a severe crime with consequences for both parties involved. It’s best to know where your state stands on the issue and to be smart about it. Sending pictures or messages via your phone opens up the doors for a world of trouble and heartache.

 Resources

 Primary

Connecticut State Police: Connecticut Sexting and Teens

National Criminal Justice Reference Service: Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act

Additional

Criminal Defense Lawyer: Teen Sexting in Pennsylvania

Daily Mail: Parents of ‘Sexting’ Teenagers Can Now Be Punished in Texas

Aggressive Criminal Defense: Sexting Laws and Legal Information

Washington Post: Stop Demonizing Teen Sexting. In Most Cases it is Completely Harmless

CNN: Chances Are Your Teen Has Sexted

 Editor’s Note: This article has been updated to credit select information to Criminal Defense Lawyer. 

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Teen Sexting: What are the Legal Consequences? appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, two years and one day after a shooter took the lives of 20 elementary school students and six staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, families of nine of the victims filed a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the weapon that killed their loved ones.

The complaint asserts liability for wrongful deaths, arguing that Bushmaster Firearms Inc., the manufacturer, shouldn’t have been selling civilians the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle used in the massacre. Shooter Adam Lanza’s mother had purchased the rifle legally. Lanza shot and killed his mother with another gun before taking her Bushmaster AR-15 and heading for Sandy Hook.

The suit goes at lengths to argue that the AR-15 has no reason to be sold for civilian use. Although the rifle is useful to the military, it says, it is predictable that selling it to civilians could result in mass shootings:

The AR-15, however, has little utility for legitimate civilian purposes. The rifle’s size and overwhelming firepower, so well adapted to battlefield are in fact liabilities in home defense. … But there is one tragically predictable civilian activity in which the AR-15 reigns supreme: mass shootings.

The families filed the suit in Connecticut Superior Court and listed as additional defendants weapons distributor Camfour and Riverview Sales, the shop that sold the gun used in the attack, as well as its owner, David Laguercia.

The families have a formidable legal hurdle ahead of them called the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which protects gun manufacturers and dealers from liability when their products are used in crimes. The families are seeking to use an exception of the law for cases when the companies should be able to know that their guns could be used in a way that could injure others, the Associated Press reports.

Bushmaster faced a similar suit a decade ago, when families and victims of the Washington, D.C. area sniper shootings that left 10 dead settled with the manufacturer and a gun shop for $2.5 million. Laguercia also had recent legal trouble when he pleaded guilty last year to federal misdemeanor charges regarding his failure to keep proper records and selling weapons without completing background checks. However, those charges were not related to the Sandy Hook attack.

The suit says that the plaintiffs seek “nothing more and nothing less than accountability for the consequences” of the defendant’s choice to “disregard the unreasonable risks the rifle posed outside of specialized, highly regulated institutions like the armed forces and law enforcement.” Officially, they are seeking unspecified monetary damages.

Historically, government discussion on gun control has lived in legislatures, and not courts. The Sandy Hook case is very particular to the specific incident two years ago, so it may be better-suited in a court. However, it doesn’t come without major obstacles.

The families will have to link Bushmaster, Camfour, Riverview, and Laguercia to Lanza. This could prove especially difficult given that the gun was sold to his mother and not him. That is just the beginning of their problem. Whether or not they can make that connection, they have to successfully prove that any of the defendants could have foreseen the attack at Sandy Hook happen as a result of the sale of the rifle. Practically, this would rule out Bushmaster and Camfour, as they are far up the chain. However, it could be possible for the plaintiffs to hit Riverview and owner Laguercia, and paint him as negligent. Considering what is at stake, though, successfully suing a single gun shop and owner doesn’t seem like a really big win for gun control–although this could be a symbolic victory.

Zaid Shoorbajee

Zaid Shoorbajee is a an undergraduate student at The George Washington University majoring in journalism and economics. He is from the Washington, D.C. area and likes reading and writing about international affairs, politics, business and technology (especially when they intersect). Contact Zaid at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Newtown Families Sue Manufacturer of Gun Used in Sandy Hook Shooting appeared first on Law Street.

Anyone who went to public school (and probably a decent chunk of the children who went to private school, as well) remember school lunch time. You file into the cafeteria, grab one of the brightly colored plastic trays, and then take whatever they give you, with maybe a scant handful of options along the way. Of course, some students bring lunch, and others have dietary concerns–in middle school I ordered a peanut butter and jelly sandwich approximately 75 percent of the time–but that was of course before peanut butter was banned from many cafeterias. But for the vast majority of the many, many students who order lunch each day there is very little choice. In addition, in many places there are very specific rules governing students during lunchtime. An overall unhappiness with their school-provided nutrition is why students at Farmington High School in Farmington, Connecticut, started boycotting school lunches.

Students at Farmington High in particular have a problem with Chartwells, the food provider for the school. They allege that the food is disgusting–according to a Washington Post article:

Since Chartwells replaced the district’s in-house meal program in 2012, according to the students, it has meant an increasingly unpalatable menu, with food that sometimes features mold, human hair, dangerously undercooked meats, insects and portion sizes fit for a small, starving child.

In addition, students have butt up against policies by the school involving the ability of students to charge food. So, they boycotted the lunches this week. The boycott has apparently been ended, and dialogue has opened up between the students, the school, and Chartwells. Principle William Silva stated:

We had some of the boycott organizers, so to speak, and other student leaders who we had reached out to make sure we were hearing all student voices. Everyone contributed, it was very positive, very respectful and we talked about some of the things we’re immediately going to do.

This nation has a big problem when it comes to school lunches, especially because so many of them are served to students who do not have any other choice when it comes to their nutrition. In fiscal year 2013 alone, the government provided free or reduced-price meals to nearly 31 million students–totaling about 5 billion lunches. That’s an essential source of nutrition for students whose families don’t necessarily have the resources to pay for healthy nutrition outside of school, and its exactly those kind of students whom the aid programs are designed to help. In addition, while it’s easy to make the argument that students who have the means but do not want to buy lunch can just bring it from home, it’s not really a fair one. Even students who could make lunches at home might not have the time, the ability, or the support, or they have to contend with long bus rides that mean that they don’t have access to proper refrigeration.

The students of Farmington High School were right to boycott the fact that they were not being provided adequate nutrition. And it’s not just that particularly school–Everett High School in D.C. is also undertaking a boycott for pretty much the same reasons. Meghan Hellrood is a senior at the school and is organizing the boycott, complaining that the lunches aren’t filling enough. While these are just a few isolated incidents, I’d love to see students nationally stand up for themselves and make sure that make their voices heard about bad school nutrition.

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 School Lunch Boycotts in Connecticut, D.C. Highlight Bad School Nutrition appeared first on Law Street.

Today’s installment of weird arrests of the week has a lot of fun highlights–including an international flair as an incident from Australia made the list. Enjoy!

[SlideDeck2 id=28308 ress=1]

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post Weird Arrests of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Security cameras are a common facet in many places that we frequent, from office complexes to shopping malls. Closed circuit security cameras (CCTV) are mainly put in place to keep people safe, but one notable place where CCTVs are missing is our schools.

Tragedies such as the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut in 2012 have raised alarms for increased school security and the use of technology to keep children safe. Many schools have security cameras at their entrances and, in some cases, in hallways and other high-traffic areas. In the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and other nations, schools are beginning to experiment with the idea of placing closed-circuit security cameras in classrooms. Read on to learn the arguments about whether or not we should extend CCTV coverage to our public school classrooms.

What are the arguments for putting CCTVs in classrooms?

Those who support the addition of cameras to public school classrooms argue that they will increase school security while providing a useful tool for teacher collaboration. Many claim that the presence of the cameras alone would be enough to deter many students from committing crimes or engaging in common misbehavior while in the classroom. Cameras can also provide evidence if students are accused of a crime, saving administration from conducting lengthy and probing investigations.

Cameras could also be used by teachers as a tool to share effective learning methods and to connect with parents. Experienced, highly effective teachers could videotape segments of their lessons to be used in professional development programs and teacher training courses. Advocates have also argued that cameras could serve as deterrents to those bad teachers who do exist, particularly in special needs classrooms where students may have difficulty communicating instances of abuse to their parents. Parents would also have the ability to become in tune with what their children experience in the classroom, creating a closer marriage of a student’s education and home life and allowing parents to understand and supplement that education.

What are the arguments against CCTVs in classrooms?

Opponents are cautious about the installation of CCTVs due to the intrusion upon public school classrooms. Some administrators have indicated plans to use CCTVs to evaluate teacher performance and determine teacher effectiveness. Many professionals in American education oppose this method of teacher evaluation, as it seeks to make direct links between teacher methods and student achievement without accounting for other variables, such as socio-economic conditions and student behavior.

Additionally, using constant video surveillance of teachers as a form of evaluation would lead to a system where teacher merely imitate specific behaviors and methods they know evaluators are looking for while lacking creativity, individuality, and maverick methods that often characterize the best teachers and drive innovation. Many opponents also indicate that the presence of cameras could create a “Big Brother” atmosphere in the classroom, dampen student participation, and dissuade many students from exercising free speech.

Others worry that it infringes upon the relationships that teachers can have with their students. Teachers often have the ability to engage with their students about sensitive topics, including problems at home, difficulties in school, and the like. Teachers worry that installing CCTV cameras will make it less likely that students can confide in them, and therefore less likely that they are able to provide help or advice for those students. This worry is compounded by the fact that in most cases where cameras are installed, they are not able to turned off by the teachers themselves.

CCTVs in Classrooms in the UK

The idea of CCTVs has gained great momentum in Britain, where 85 percent of schools currently have CCTVs, and some schools, such as Stockwell Park High School in South London, have over 100 cameras inside its buildings (two in each classroom and 40 in hallways, cafeterias, and other areas).

The CCTV-based monitoring has had mixed reception in the UK. Teachers don’t really seem to like the institution of the cameras, citing concerns that they’re not in place for safety reasons, but rather to judge teachers. A teachers union conducted a study in the UK and discovered that 41 percent of teachers claimed that the cameras were used to find evidence that led to “negative views” of the staff being monitored.

There have also been cases of students in the UK being unhappy with the CCTV cameras placed in their schools. In a school in Essex, a student named Sam Goodman started a protest after discovering that cameras that were said to have been placed in his school for training purposes had actually been switched on. Goodman took many issues with the implementation of CCTV cameras, pointing out, “We’ll end up with all teachers being the same. And pupils will grow up thinking that it’s acceptable to be monitored like this.” He also was suspicious that the cameras were just supposed to be used for teacher training, claiming that the equipment seemed too extensive for such a narrow purpose. He eventually started a walk-out to protest the CCTV cameras.

There’s also a debate ongoing in the UK that the placement of CCTV cameras has gone too far. According to a British watchdog group called Big Brother Watch, more than 200 schools had installed CCTVs in restrooms and changing rooms (locker rooms). The only way that Big Brother Watch got that information was by filing a Freedom of Information Request with the government. A statement from Big Brother Watch claimed:

The full extent of school surveillance is far higher than we had expected and will come as a shock to many parents. Schools need to come clean about why they are using these cameras and what is happening to the footage. Local authorities also need to be doing far more to reign in excessive surveillance in their areas and ensuring resources are not being diverted from more effective alternatives. The Home Office’s proposed regulation of CCTV will not apply to schools and the new Commissioner will have absolutely no powers to do anything. Parents will be right to say that such a woefully weak system is not good enough.

While CCTV surveillance has become a sort of norm in the UK, many are still not happy about it. Those who are advocating for CCTV cameras in classrooms in the U.S. may be able to improve on the UK’s experiment to avoid the problems found there, while those who oppose the implementation may use the UK’s problems as reasoning for avoiding CCTV cameras in classrooms here.

Conclusion

Given the concentration of cameras in certain institutions, it’s no surprise that we’re now talking about implementing them in public school classrooms. While there are certainly benefits, such as added security and deterrence from fighting, there are also strong arguments against the practice, such as privacy concerns. Taking a cue from the UK’s book may be a smart idea, but whether or not the practice will catch on in the U.S. remains to be seen.

Resources

Primary 

Change.org: Cameras in Special Needs Classrooms

Hudson Park High School: CCTV Report

Additional

PR Web: CCTV Cameras Can Prevent Violence in the Classroom

SelfGrowth.com: Classrooms Should Have Closed-Circuit Cameras

Boss Closed Security: School Closed Circuit TV: How Does it Work and Why?

TES Connect: CCTV is Used to Spy on Teachers

Sydney Morning Herald: School Surveillance Puts Trust at Risk

LoveToKnow.com: Keep Security Cameras Out of School Classrooms

Salon: Big Brother Invades Our Classrooms

National Education Policy Center: Cameras in the Classroom: A Good Idea?

Guardian: Someone to Watch Over You

Learn By Cam: CCTV in Schools and Classrooms

USA Today: Who’s Watching the Class?

ZD Net: Should CCTV Be Allowed in Schools and Universities?

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post CCTV Cameras in Classrooms: Big Brother Watching? appeared first on Law Street.

A new concept is sweeping the United States, one that many of our peer countries have had for years: paid sick leave. Yesterday, Governor Jerry Brown of California signed a law requiring most employers in the state to provide at least three paid sick days per year to their workers. While some American cities have already created similar laws, and the state of Connecticut has paid sick days in place for businesses that fall under certain requirements, California makes history as the first state to sign such an inclusive bill with regard to this benefit.

The idea is pretty simple — sickness is unpredictable. And sometimes people who have already used their vacation days, or simply can’t afford to take a day off, ever, get sick. When those people who can’t take a day off from work get sick, they not only most likely prolong their own illness, but also open up those they work with to sickness as well.

California’s law, although passed after Connecticut’s, is certainly more inclusive. Connecticut’s law, passed earlier this year, applies only to businesses with 50 employees or more. Manufacturers and certain types of tax-exempt organizations, regardless of the number of employees, aren’t required to follow the law. Day workers, non-hourly workers, and salaried employees also aren’t included — although that may be because salaried workers are often given sick days anyway. Connecticut’s law does, however, allow workers to accrue up to five sick days and while it was a unique and ground-breaking step, California’s law is significantly more far-reaching.

California’s law, on the other hand, applies to almost all employees, allowing them to acquire one hour of paid sick time for every 30 hours worked. Assembleywoman Lorena Gonzalez explained the motivation behind the more inclusive law, saying:

We become the first state in the nation to guarantee paid sick days for every single private-sector worker in the state — no matter what industry they work in, no matter if they are part-time or seasonal, and regardless of the size of their employer. This means more than 6.5 million more workers in this state will be able to take up to three days off when they or their child is sick without fearing the loss of income, hours or their job.

Paid sick time off is an especially notable issue to examine because of the incredibly fast way in which it became a conversation in the United States. Less than 10 years ago, there were really no laws requiring paid time off for workers; now two different states have passed statewide laws to that effect, and many other cities require paid time off as well now.

The main argument against paid sick days is that it will hurt the economy, but we have pretty convincing evidence to show that simply isn’t the case. The Connecticut economy has reported no dramatic negative changes due to the implementation of the paid sick day law. Some cities, such as Seattle, Washington, have also reported seeing no economic downturn after the law was passed; Seattle has actually seen economic growth.

And given that extending paid sick days to the vast majority of employees doesn’t lead to any economic issues, the full humanitarian benefits of the law really can be realized. As Governor Brown put it when he signed the bill into law:

Whether you’re a dishwasher in San Diego or a store clerk in Oakland, this bill frees you of having to choose between your family’s health and your job. Make no mistake, California is putting its workers first.

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 Congrats California Workers: Paid Sick Days are Coming Your Way 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 [Pradipta Mitra via Wikimedia Commons]

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 Business Law: #10 Yale Law School 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 [Pradipta Mitra via Wikimedia Commons]

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 Schools for Healthcare Law: #7 Yale Law School appeared first on Law Street.

Usually, when a crime is committed, the person responsible for the illegal action goes to jail. Although, this is the correct sequence of events, it is not always what occurs in reality. This was recently proven by the Connecticut DCF system, which placed a 16 year old transgender teen in jail despite lacking one important aspect; technically, she has never been charged with a crime.

On April 8, 2014 a superior court judge ordered the girl, who will remain as Jane Doe to protect her identity, to be transferred from DCF custody to the woman’s prison, York Correctional Institution in East Lyme. This decision was made after the judge heard an overwhelming amount of evidence regarding the girl’s violent acts over the course of six days. The treatment of this youth is deemed appropriate by the Connecticut Department of Children and Families. DCF referred to a legal statute which has not been used in 14 years, granting them the right to transfer dangerous juveniles who cannot be held at a treatment facility. According to DCF, this transfer was necessary because of her past violence against both staff and fellow patients at a number of treatment facilities.

The Jane Doe is a transgender teen who was born as a male and identifies as a female. She has been living within the DCF system since the age of 5, and when discussing her time with DCF explains, “I feel that DCF has failed to protect me from harm and I am thrown into prison because they have refused to help me.”

This has becomes a battle between DCF and the girl’s lawyer, Aaron J. Romano. DCF has made it clear that this youth is uniquely dangerous to both staff and patients alike, making it hard to provide her with proper support within the facility. On the other hand, Romano explains that the girl’s aggression is the result of the sexual abuse that she has faced in the DCF system and should not be the cause of her jail time. Instead, her attorney explains that the girl spends around 22 hours a day in solitary confinement and her condition is deteriorating due to a lack of counseling.

Here are the issues at play:

1. Gender

This case caused a wide spread legal debate, questioning the rights available to not only minors, but individuals who identify as transgender. Historically, the Department of Correction has chosen to place individuals with the inmate population that correlates to their biological gender. However, the court regarded the 2011 bill which makes it illegal to discriminate against an individual based on their gender and identity expression. This caused Jane Doe to be placed in a woman’s prison. While her rights have been granted, this becomes a double edged sword, allowing her to be in a woman’s prison, but forcing her into isolation. This is due to the fact that she is not only considered to be a violent inmate, but one with a male organ, calling into play the issue of rape.

2. No crime was committed.

Another issue is that this youth was never charged with a crime, but moved to an adult prison due to the lack of resources to support her treatment within an alternative facility. Many activists question, if this individual identified with her biological, male identity, would she have ended up in jail? Many agree that she would most likely have been placed into a treatment facility with other males, and much of this stems from DCF’s lack of transgender options.

Romano has filed a legal complaint against DCF and its commissioner, Joetter Katz as well as the State Department and its commissioner, James Duzrenda. The youth’s lawyer charged that the state law used to transfer the teen is illegal because it violates two federal laws. The Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 which provides funds to states in order to follow core protections for youth in the justice system and the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 dealing with the sexual assault of prisoners. Romano is hoping to overturn the “unconstitutional” transfer. The complaint further requires DCF to create programming and treatment specific to transgender children and youth.

While this youth has committed acts of violence, an adult prison facility is not the place for her. I would think that it would be more beneficial for a troubled youth to be working through her emotional turmoil rather than sitting in solitary confinement, where nothing can be done. This is partially the fault of the court system, which opted to place this youth in jail due to DCF’s lack of options. There are not many treatment options for transgender youth or even high risk individuals but changes need to be made. DCF should create new programming to accommodate such circumstances.

[The Huffington Post] [The CT Mirror]

—

Taylor Garre (@TaylorLynn013)

Taylor Garre

Taylor Garre is a student at Fordham University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Taylor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Transgender Teen is Imprisoned, But is it Constitutional? appeared first on Law Street.