Last week, the NFL issued Dallas Cowboys running back Ezekiel Elliott a six-game suspension for violating the NFL’s personal-conduct policy, following an investigation into domestic abuse allegations. Now the former Buckeye has filed an official appeal, hoping to discredit his accuser by highlighting a text exchange between her and a friend in which she discussed leveraging sex videos featuring her and Elliott for money from the player.

Yahoo! Sport’s Charles Robinson obtained a 160-page report prepared by NFL investigators, which reportedly contains a series of text messages between Elliott’s ex-girlfriend Tiffany Thompson and an unnamed friend that suggest the pair considered blackmailing the second-year pro for $20,000.

According to the report, here is the exact exchange between Thompson and her friend on September 21, 2016:

[Thompson]: What if I sold mine and Ezekiel’s sex videos

[Friend]: We’d all be millionaires

[Friend]: We could black mail him w that

[Thompson]: I want to bro

[Friend]: Let’s do it

[Thompson]: Scared

[Friend]: Shit

[Friend]: Id be like look give me 10k or I’ll just sell our sex videos for the same amount flat

[Friend]: Me and my friends tryna go on vacation and get boob jobs

(the report notes a pair of blank texts)

[Thompson]: 10k Bitch I want 20k

[Thompson]: Go big or go home

[Friend]: That’s fine too

“While none of this appears to be evidence that can conclusively clear Elliott of domestic violence, the NFLPA and his lawyers believe it speaks to the credibility aspect that may ultimately determine the success of his appeal,” writes Yahoo! Sports.

Elliott, 22, was accused of assaulting Thompson in Columbus, Ohio, in July 2016, after she posted images of bruises all over her body to her Instagram, tagging Elliott. In the captions, Thompson said Elliott picked her up and threw her across the room by her arms and choked her. She later called Columbus police and told officers that Elliott had been hitting her for “the past five days.”

Elliott, who was neither arrested nor charged in the case, continues to maintain his innocence.

However, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell suspended Elliott after four independent advisers concluded that there was “substantial and persuasive evidence supporting a finding that [Elliott] engaged in physical violence against Ms. Thompson on multiple occasions during the week of July 16, 2016.” The league found the “photographic and medical forensic evidence corroborates many critical elements of the allegations regarding the causes of her injuries.”

Following the release of the text messages, many were accused of shaming the victim with their responses on Twitter.

Tiffany Thompson was willing to ruin @EzekielElliott career so she and her pals could get $20K worth of boob jobs. https://t.co/QEUpT1Pk6e

— mike fisher ✭ (@fishsports) August 16, 2017

This doesn’t clear Zeke. It just tears away at her credibility. Makes me wonder how unimpressed they were with Zeke’s credibility

— Mark Friedman (@friedo1033) August 16, 2017

I see we’ve reached the “trash the victim” point in Ezekiel Elliott case. Lovely. Remember victims can behave badly, still have been abused

— Nancy Armour (@nrarmour) August 16, 2017

Seeing people paint Ezekiel Elliott as the victim in this situation is … something.

— Scott Bell (@ScottBellDMN) August 11, 2017

Elliott’s lawyers intend to further attack Thompson’s credibility in their appeal using documents that show she allegedly lied to the Columbus Police department during its investigation, and her various threats to “ruin his career,” including one that was racially based, according to sources. In one such threat, Thompson allegedly told Elliott on July 22, “You are a black male athlete. I’m a white girl. They are not going to believe you.”

Elliott will be eligible to make his season debut October 29 against the Washington Redskins. His appeal hearing is scheduled for August 29.

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 Ezekiel Elliott’s Accuser Admitted to Suggesting Blackmail Over Sex Tapes appeared first on Law Street.

On July 23, Washington will become the first state in the country to establish a system that notifies domestic abuse victims when their abuser illegally attempts to buy a gun.

The law orders the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC) to establish a grant program to “create and operate a statewide system to automatically notify a registered person when a respondent subject to a court order has been denied the purchase of a firearm based on ineligibility.”

The grant program would also allow local agencies to “conduct criminal investigations of persons who illegally attempted to purchase or transfer a firearm within their jurisdictions.”

The law’s two-pronged approach is meant to close existing legal loopholes, which critics say allow potentially dangerous individuals to attempt to buy guns, lie on background checks, and get away with it.

“This will not just keep guns out of the hands of those who are not eligible to have them, but keep the public and our law enforcement officers safe,” Washington Governor Jay Inslee said when he signed the bill in May.

Tamaso Johnson, the Public Policy Director for the Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence told Law Street Media that the group worked closely with legislators and other stakeholders on this bill.

“Giving survivors of domestic violence the option to be notified if an abuser attempts to illegally purchase a gun allows them to more accurately plan for their own safety and the safety of those closest to them,” Johnson said.

How the system works

When an individual who is convicted of a misdemeanor for domestic violence or subject to a restraining order for domestic abuse fails the background check required to purchase a gun, the vendor will have five days to report the incident to the WASPC.

The WASPC will then report the incident to the Washington State Patrol, which will officially record it in a database, allowing for local authorities to investigate. Meanwhile, under the bill, the WASPC will also have to send out an alert to victims and loved ones associated with the individual.

The bill states that a person needs to easily be able “to register or update his or her registration information by calling a toll-free phone number or by accessing a public website.” People who choose to be alerted can elect to receive a notification by email or by phone.

A landmark bill

This bill received a lot of support from both Democrats and Republicans as it seeks to address a wide-spread issue in Washington. According to a local investigation by KING5TV Seattle, 3,000 “lie and try” attempts occurred in 2016 and were never investigated.

“If you’re a criminal and you walk into a firearms store, you knowingly violate the law by illegally trying to purchase a firearm, you should be arrested, you should be prosecuted and in an appropriate case you should spend some time in prison,” said Democrat Drew Hansen, the primary sponsor of the bill.

The National Rifle Association isn’t necessarily opposed to the effort, although it remains wary of the potential for erroneous entries into the database, as can occur when identities are mistaken and a background check is run.

Though it is limited to the state, this bill also represents a big step toward addressing the huge problem of domestic violence in the United States. A study conducted by the Center for American Progress concluded that between 2001 and 2012, 6,410 women were “murdered in the U.S. by an intimate partner using a gun—more than the total number of U.S. troops killed in action during the entirety of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.”

Paula Harwood testified in support of the bill before it was passed. She shared the fear she felt when she learned that her abusive ex-husband had attempted to buy a gun, despite the fact that she had obtained a protection order against him. She said she only found out about the incident through a reporter who had been investigating the background check law.

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 Washington Will Notify Victims When Domestic Abusers Try to Buy Guns appeared first on Law Street.

Cedric Anderson’s fatal shooting of his estranged wife, Karen Smith, and one of her students in a San Bernardino elementary school on Monday sparked discussions about domestic violence. While assumptions were made about the shooting when it first broke–namely that it could have been a terror attack–it was quickly revealed to be an act of domestic violence. This raises the question: why isn’t domestic violence as heavily covered by the media as terrorism?

Why, exactly, doesn’t violence against women cause the same type of public outrage? There are plenty of theories–including traditional male dominance over women, and the historical viewpoint that a woman is a man’s possession–that could lead to the downplaying of domestic violence. But it’s incredibly dangerous–according to mental health experts, most murder-suicides are committed by men killing their female partner and then themselves. And in 90 percent of murder-suicides, guns are the preferred method.

Domestic violence has in some cases proven to be a warning sign and precursor for a mass shooting. That was the case with Omar Mateen and the nightclub shooting in Orlando last year, Robert Lewis Dear who was the alleged gunman at the Planned Parenthood shooting in 2015, John Houster who killed nine people at a Louisiana movie theater in 2014, and many others. According to an analysis by Everytown for Gun Safety, 54 percent of all mass-shootings involved a current or former partner or family member.

Her name was Karen Smith & she was shot by her estranged husband in front of her students. We need to talk about guns and domestic violence. pic.twitter.com/3uWiibMwBb

— UltraViolet (@UltraViolet) April 11, 2017

And Anderson was not a first-time offender. He had a history of domestic violence against previous girlfriends, stretching back three decades. He also had a history of threatening gun violence, and had been charged with assault, battery, disturbing the peace, and brandishing a firearm in Los Angeles in 2013. But he was still allowed to own a gun.

According to Susan Sorenson, who studies domestic violence and guns at the University of Pennsylvania, there isn’t any research available on whether some men use domestic violence against their partner as a preparation for a mass shooting, but she said it’s certainly an intriguing theory. “Men who are violent toward their female partners often are violent guys in general–that might be the issue,” she said.

According to data from the FBI, at least 6,875 people were fatally shot by their romantic partner from 2006 to 2014. Eighty percent of those victims were women. That means that every 16 hours, an American woman is fatally shot by a partner or a former partner. There is a law called the Lautenberg Amendment that prohibits people convicted of domestic violence from owning a gun–but that only applies if the couple is married, has been married, or if they have a child together. Anderson was in no way prohibited from owning guns, as Smith was the only woman he ever married and she never reported him to the authorities.

“an estimated 50 women a month are shot to death in the US by former or current partners” https://t.co/ZPSXDjoCAu

— Mona Eltahawy (@monaeltahawy) April 12, 2017

This creates what is sometimes called the “boyfriend loophole,” where partners who have never been married to their victims are free to own firearms even after being convicted of domestic violence. It doesn’t stop anyone from illegally obtaining a weapon, or from buying one privately or over the internet. Domestic violence happens every single day, but it seems like it’s often taken for granted as something that “just happens.”

The U.S. has a rate of gun violence that is nowhere close to the rates of other developed countries. According to data from the United Nations, the U.S. has almost six times the gun murder rate of Canada, seven times Sweden’s, and a whopping 16 times Germany’s.

It’s hard to say whether change is forthcoming. But Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, said that advocates for stricter gun control are working to tighten domestic violence gun laws on the state level throughout the country. And since 2013, 22 states have passed bills restricting access to guns for perpetrators of domestic violence.

“This is an issue that red and blue lawmakers can agree on: domestic abusers shouldn’t have guns,” she said. “All countries have domestic violence. The difference is that we arm our abusers.” All available research agrees with this–more gun ownership leads to more gun violence. If a domestic abuser has access to a gun, violence is more than three times more likely to turn deadly. And until lawmakers realize this and significantly tighten gun laws, more shootings will happen and people will keep becoming desensitized.

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 San Bernardino Shooting Puts Domestic Violence in the Spotlight appeared first on Law Street.

Hashtag of the day: #DeleteUber was trending over the weekend as the news was dominated by chaos and confusion over the Trump Administration travel ban. If you’re wondering what that hashtag stands for, check this out. Then read on for the latest rants.

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’s Travel Ban Causes Chaos and Protests

On Friday, President Donald Trump issued an executive order, banning people from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States. The order came abruptly and caused immense chaos at airports around the country, as people arriving from the affected countries were detained. Serious protests erupted, mainly at airports, and the move has been sharply condemned by, well, most people internationally.

It will probably have serious consequences in many ways. American academic institutions, hospitals, and businesses rely on experts and professionals from other countries. Iraq has already said it will retaliate. And an online petition in the U.K., aiming to keep Trump from making a state visit, quickly got over a million signatures.

IMAGE: Protests at airports across the United States pic.twitter.com/7OEqC9HtaT

— The Int’l Spectator (@spectatorindex) January 29, 2017

Initially, the ban also applied to green card holders and people with dual citizenship. Stories about students being stranded after a vacation or people unable to get home flooded the media over the weekend. An Iraqi man who worked as a translator for the U.S. military for a decade was detained for 18 hours at JFK Airport in New York.

As of now, it appears that no one is being detained or held at an airport anymore and there have been exemptions for 392 green card holders who have been allowed into the country. Fifteen attorneys general have issued a statement condemning Trump’s actions, calling it an “unconstitutional, un-American and unlawful Executive Order.” There is still confusion over what the order will actually mean, but the courts, big companies like Google and Facebook, celebrities, and ordinary citizens are all fighting back.

The synagogue where President Trump’s grandchild goes to preschool has condemned his travel ban https://t.co/jpunSV0ReA pic.twitter.com/0GbC3AM3ZG

— CNN International (@cnni) 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 RantCrush Top 5: January 30, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Russian Deputy Minister Yelena Mizulina submitted a bill to the State Duma, Russia’s lower house of parliament, that would decriminalize some acts of domestic violence. If passed, the law would protect abusers found guilty of domestic abuse for the first time, as long as the attack did not cause serious harm and excluded rape.

The ultra-conservative lawmaker, who  claimed the bill defends “traditional family culture,” said people should not be jailed or considered a criminal for “a slap.” Unsurprisingly, Mizulina is also the author of the “gay propaganda bill,” which has greatly restricted the rights of LBGTQ people. This law was similarly justified by claims that it defended traditional families.

The Duma, dominated by President Vladimir Putin’s United Russia party, overwhelmingly supported the legislation, dubbed the “slapping bill” by Russian media. Of the Duma’s 450 MPs, 368 voted in favor of the law after its first reading. The law stands in opposition to one passed last July that criminalized acts of violence against family members. This complete 180 is believed to be a means of appeasing the ultra-conservative faction within United Russia.

While there is little data available on domestic violence in Russia, a report by the ANNA National Centre for the Prevention of Violence estimates that violence occurs in one in four households, two-thirds of murders are domestic, 14,000 women a year are killed by their husbands or other relatives, and up to 40 percent of violent crimes are family related. Meanwhile, the city of Moscow only has one state-funded refuge for victims of domestic violence.

The bill has outraged many in Russia but the government has already moved to silence opposition. Groups wishing to protest in Russia must file for permits. While activists requested permission to protest, their requests for permits were denied on the grounds that a protest would disrupt traffic and pedestrians.

The sizable United Russia majority is likely to push the bill through subsequent votes with ease before they send it to the upper chamber for a final vote.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bill Aims to Decriminalize Some Domestic Violence in Russia 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:

Hillary Clinton is a Nasty Woman?

The last presidential debate of the 2016 cycle was last night, and for all intents and purposes it was a lot more substantive than the first two. But, in true Trumpian fashion, the Republican nominee had a few inappropriate quips throughout the evening–including when he said that Hillary Clinton was a “nasty woman.” How did the internet respond? By pointing out that a lot of other “nasty women” are voting for Clinton.

I’m a nasty woman and I vote. #nastywoman #nastywomenunite

— Kate Binder (@katebinder) October 20, 2016

Nasty Woman seeks Bad Hombre to share long walks on the beach, leisurely afternoons reading, and trading off who is the real puppet.

— Jill Filipovic (@JillFilipovic) October 20, 2016

The “nasty woman” comment, in the end, will sum up this presidential run and be the mark of the final undoing tonight. #debatenight

— Uzo Aduba (@UzoAduba) October 20, 2016

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: October 20, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emma Von Zeipel

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

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

After suffering through domestic violence accusations, damning photos and text messages, and a restraining order, Amber Heard has made good on her promise and has given away her $7 million divorce settlement with Johnny Depp to charity.

Amber Heard Is Donating All $7 Million Of Her Johnny Depp Divorce Settlement https://t.co/zosgwOYF7h pic.twitter.com/aMX48OIfWM

— Elite Daily (@EliteDaily) August 19, 2016

Heard announced the decision in a statement to Buzzfeed Thursday, saying the divorce with Depp was never about the money and that she hopes the money goes to people “less able to defend themselves.”

According to Buzzfeed, Heard said the large donation “will be divided equally between the ACLU, with a particular focus to stop violence against women, and the Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles, where I have worked as a volunteer for the past 10 years alongside organizations like the Art of Elysium.”

Heard filed for divorce in May, and later obtained a temporary restraining order that alleges Depp hit her during a fight in their Los Angeles apartment that same month. Her allegations looked pretty convincing as she walked into an L.A. courtroom with a bruise on her right cheek below the eye.

Depp, who has stayed relatively silent over the course of the divorce proceedings, has yet to release a statement and is probably under orders from his publicist to avoid the media at all costs. Why? Perhaps because its unclear if his career will recover from the domestic violence scandal. Former fans are still trying to figure out if they can forget forgive his domestic violence allegations and justify spending more money to see him in another “Pirates” sequel or freaky Tim Burton gothic comedy.

Alexis Evans

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

The post Amber Heard Donates $7 Million Divorce Settlement to Charity appeared first on Law Street.

The leader of the The Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) recently proposed a bill that would allow husbands to “lightly beat” their wives if they need to as a form of punishment.

The proposal, written by Maulana Muhammad Khan Sherani, makes no mention of “forceful beating”– because that would just be too illogical of an idea.

The CII is a 20-member group that councils the legislature on the religious aspects of the law. The council advises as to whether or not laws fall in line with the Islamic ideology, however, its recommendations are not binding.

The bill was drafted in response to another bill created to protect women from abuse. The CII wrote that the Punjab Women Protection bill was “un-Islamic.”

According to The Express-Tribune, a Pakistani news source, the bill states:

A husband should be allowed to lightly beat his wife if she defies his commands and refuses to dress up as per his desires; turns down demand of intercourse without any religious excuse or does not take bath after intercourse or menstrual periods.

The bill also calls for a light beating when a woman does not wear her hijab, interacts with strangers, and speaks too loudly, according to The Express-Tribune.

In addition, Dawn reports that the proposal states that women are also barred from getting birth control without spousal consent and mothers must breastfeed for a minimum of two years, among other bans and requirements.

The announcement of this proposal sparked protests on Twitter, and one photographer took it upon himself to document women’s reactions.

Pakistani photographer Fahhad Rajper created a photo album with the hashtag #TryBeatingMeLightly to show that Pakistani women are willing to put up a fight in opposition of the bill. The hashtag trended on Twitter, inspiring users from all around the world to join in on the discussion.

#TryBeatingMeLightly and I will break your jaw in thousand pieces.

— ® آخری دَرویش (@Dervishious) May 30, 2016

“#TryBeatingMeLightly is an initiative to empower women amongst us who work towards individual and collective betterment,” Rajper told Buzzfeed. “It’s an opportunity for those to voice their opinions who can’t or don’t. The women around me, at my home, in my friend circle and in the industry that I love.”

Here are some of his photographs:

#TryBeatingMeLightly I’ll break that hand you raised, remaining damage? I’ll leave it upto Allah.
Shagufta, Doctor. pic.twitter.com/esqM7qlCc4

— Fahhad Rajper (@FahhadRajper) May 30, 2016

#TryBeatingMeLightly and take a punch in the ass!
Amber Zulfiqar, Travel and Lifestyle Blogger. pic.twitter.com/pWUJXXlQHK

— Fahhad Rajper (@FahhadRajper) May 29, 2016

#TryBeatingMeLightly, you won’t survive to see the morning.
Sumbul Usman, Social Media Manager pic.twitter.com/d5KfM5Fzmy

— Fahhad Rajper (@FahhadRajper) May 29, 2016

#TryBeatingMeLightly -I’ll run a car over you with my 7years of driving experience!
Priyanka Pahuja,Digital Marketer pic.twitter.com/depoCpINJ6

— Fahhad Rajper (@FahhadRajper) May 29, 2016

#TryBeatingMeLightly, I’ll become the destruction you will never forsee.
Adeeqa Lalwani, Digital Storyteller. pic.twitter.com/jWW9jFARGy

— Fahhad Rajper (@FahhadRajper) May 29, 2016

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) released a statement condemning the “ridiculous” recommendations.

“It is difficult to comprehend why anyone in his right mind would think that any further encouragement or justification is needed to invite violence upon women in Pakistan,” the HRCP said.

The HRCP also discussed its confusion as to why the CII’s recommendations had not been questioned before. The answer to this may be in part due to a lack of social awareness. But thanks to an expanding social media presence, thousands of women have come forward to condemn and fight against the recommendation.

“HRCP would like to know why the CII’s obsession with women, its attempts to ensure subservience of the female gender and to keep women from attaining equal standing in society have not been called into question so far,” the HRCP said.

The CII, while a highly influential body, can only make suggestions. It is up to the Pakistani legislature to decide whether or not citizens must legally abide by them.

Julia Bryant

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

The post #TryBeatingMeLightly: Hashtag Voices Outrage at CII’s Disciplinary Proposal appeared first on Law Street.

Domestic abuse isn’t always physical, it doesn’t always leave bruises, and it’s not always visible to the naked eye. Abuse can be mental, emotional, and verbal–and Zahira Kelly wanted to call attention to that fact when she started the hashtag #MaybeHeDoesntHitYou. An artist and writer, Kelly told Bustle:

Women’s primary cause of harm and death is abuse from their loved one. The toll is in the millions and has been especially damaging to colonized women such as myself. The genocide and slavery we endured were justified via the same abuse culture that we face today. This is hundreds of years of abuse of all forms from the most extreme to the most subtle.

The hashtag has encouraged thousands of women to share their experience with abuse. Here are some of the powerful responses:

#maybehedoesnthityou but he constantly criticizes your clothes, your makeup, your body, instructs you to work out and be more ‘feminine.’

— Laurie Penny (@PennyRed) May 11, 2016

#MaybeHeDoesntHitYou but he manipulates you into thinking that you’re ugly, worthless, stupid and undeserving of all the good things in life

— Feminism Matters (@WeNeedFeminlsm) May 11, 2016

#maybehedoesnthityou but he manipulates you and threatens to commit suicide if you leave him.

— LOAFANGURL101 (@KATHERINEALKA) May 10, 2016

#maybehedoesnthityou but he tries to control who you talk to, where you go, what friends you can have, and acts like it’s out of love.

— sailor mourn (@detricotage) May 9, 2016

#maybehedoesnthityou but you need his approval for everything and he treats you like property and not a person

— Keegan Kenzie (@Keegannnnn) May 9, 2016

#MaybeHeDoesntHitYou but he’s conditioned you into thinking you’re supposed to ask him before you hang out with other male friends

— jih like lolita (@nangatse) May 9, 2016

#MaybeHeDoesntHitYou but you avoid saying or doing things because you don’t want to have to deal with how he might react.

— Jennifer Hodgson (@jennifer_hodg) May 9, 2016

#MaybeHeDoesntHitYou but he makes sure you believe that you’re too broken/damaged to ever be wanted by anyone else

— Just Juanita (@Just_Juanita) May 9, 2016

#MaybeHeDoesntHitYou but he makes you feel like all your emotions are stupid and makes you apologize for them

— lindsay (@sloppybankroll) May 9, 2016

#MaybeHeDosentHitYou but he sends messages like this https://t.co/Q3REBLY4cX

— Fatoumata (@Kamari_Danae) May 11, 2016

Domestic abuse is a topic that for too long we have been reluctant to talk about and has remained in the shadows. While there’s certainly more work to be done, this hashtag certainly is another step toward beginning that conversation. 

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 #MaybeHeDoesntHitYou: Hashtag Sheds Light on Non-Physical Abuse appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday, the Mississippi Senate voted not to make domestic abuse a valid reason for getting a divorce. Senate Bill 2418, passed in the house but died in the senate after additional amendments were added.

The state currently has 12 grounds for divorce, and domestic abuse would have been the 13th. Some of the established grounds that warrant divorce are impotency, adultery, habitual drunkenness, and mental illness.

In addition, one of the grounds is “Habitual cruel and inhuman treatment.” This seems as if it would satisfy concerns of domestic violence because it is cruel and inhumane treatment. However, as vague as it is, it may not have been effective enough, which is a reason why legislators introduced the amendment.

It is the word “habitual” that raised concerns for legislators like state Sen. Sally Doty, a Republican representing Brookhaven, Mississippi.

“I said it in committee, and I won’t back down from it. I think one instance of domestic violence is enough for me,” Doty told the Jackson Free Press. She added, “I don’t think you should have to say, ‘Oh no, he beat [me] up again,’ and then we’ll see if it doesn’t work out.”

The state senate initially passed the bill, but when the house added a provision to allow divorce after separation for at least two years, it failed to make its way to the governor’s desk. Mississippi is only one of a few states that require fault for a divorce.

One interesting issue with the proposed legislation is that it only discusses physical domestic violence. In instances of emotional, financial, or mental abuse, the amendment would not have been able to have helped.

“I’m in favor of anything that helps our women and children, make life easier, and help them get through the process faster,” Lorine Cady, Founder and Executive Director of House of Grace, said to WREG.

Domestic abuse is a significant issue for many Americans. According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV):

• 1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 men have been victims of [some form of] physical violence by an intimate partner within their lifetime.
• 1 in 5 women and 1 in 7 men have been victims of severe physical violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime.

In addition, NCADV also notes, “1 in 7 women and 1 in 18 men have been stalked by an intimate partner during their lifetime to the point in which they felt very fearful or believed that they or someone close to them would be harmed or killed.”

Women and men who find themselves in the position of an abusive and/or violent relationship have a difficult time getting away from their partner. Streamlining the divorce process and making it clearer would be a small step to addressing the issue, giving an individual the tools they need to legally get away from an abusive marriage.

Julia Bryant

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

The post Mississippi Bill Aimed to Help Domestic Abuse Victims Seek Divorce Fails appeared first on Law Street.

The NFL has traditionally received plenty of criticism for its handling of domestic violence–particularly when it comes to the league’s treatment of players who have committed such acts. But Super Bowl 50, tonight, will feature a moving public service announcement drawing attention to domestic violence. Check out the PSA, which appears to be aimed specifically at young people, below:

The ad was created by a non-profit called NO MORE, in partnership with an advertising agency called Grey. The NFL donated the ad time, and paid for the production costs. It features one young woman talking to another about a Super Bowl party. The invitee tells her friend that she doesn’t “think it’s a good idea” because “Jake is in one of his moods.” It ends with the party host asking her friend if she’s ok, and then the ellipses that signal that a message is being typed. But the ellipses never turn into a message, implying that something happened to the young woman whose boyfriend was “in one of his moods.”

This is actually the second year running that there has been a domestic violence PSA during the Super Bowl; last year’s main event featured a similar spot, also produced by NO MORE. A camera panned around a house where someone was attacked, with a 911 voice call as the audio part of the spot. Check it out below:

The NFL’s history with domestic violence has been a storied one, and there’s still a lot of work to be done on the part of the league. For example, the NFL came under fire once again this year for its treatment of Greg Hardy, who was suspended for only four games last year after assaulting his ex-girlfriend. Not only did many view the four-game suspension as entirely too short, but were also unhappy with the fact that he was welcomed back with open arms after his suspension. More recently, there have been allegations that Johnny Manziel, also known as “Johnny Football” threatened and assaulted his girlfriend.

So, while the NFL has done a good thing by promoting the PSAs, actions speak louder than words, and the NFL’s actions still could use some serious work.

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 NFL Takes on Domestic Violence With Super Bowl PSA appeared first on Law Street.

Greg Hardy, a defensive end for the Dallas Cowboys, is returning to the field after a four-game suspension for domestic violence. According to court records, he allegedly assaulted his ex-girlfriend Nicole Holder, at one point throwing her onto a futon covered in assault rifles. But now that he’s back, it’s all sunshine and rainbows for Hardy, as he made inappropriate jokes to interviewers about coming out “guns blazin,'” and commented on the attractiveness of other players’ wives in a spectacularly sexist  fashion. Hardy deserved some seriously hefty criticism for the fact that he showed no remorse for his actions, recognition that he’d done anything wrong, or respect for women. Well, he got what he deserved, as the harshest and arguably most badass criticism came from “Garbage Time” host Katie Nolan. And she totally, utterly, nailed it. Check out the video below:

Nolan has hosted the show, which airs on Fox Sports 1, since earlier this year. Playing off the title of her show, she denounced Hardy as a “garbage human,” for his behavior, as well as the NFL, the Dallas Cowboys, and sports media for not speaking out about his inappropriate comments.

Nolan hits all the important points in her criticism, including but not limited to:

1. Hardy’s totally cavalier attitude.
2. The NFL’s seeming endorsement of his comments when they put them on the league’s website.
3. The Cowboys’ posting of the interview on their site.
4. The fact that a reporter asked Hardy a question about finding another player’s wife attractive instead of following up with him about the very real, important, and upsetting reasons why he was suspended.

But what hit closest to home was Nolan’s explanation of the fact that no one seems to find this problematic because the NFL doesn’t care about its female fans. She stated:

Greg Hardy had to pretend to respect women for 12 minutes — just 12 minutes — and he couldn’t even do that. And what’s worse: No one stopped him. They let him go on about girlfriends and guns, and posted video of it on DallasCowboys.com, because who f***ing cares, right? Women won’t see it. Women only care about football during those events they run where they tell them what to cook on game day and give them free manicures.

It’s a powerful statement, but more importantly, it really does seem to be true. After the controversy over Ray Rice’s suspension–also for domestic violence–last year, the NFL pledged to do better. While the NFL has taken some positive steps, including partnering with organizations that combat domestic abuse and violence and reforming some of its polices, the way that Hardy’s return to the game was handled shows that it’s clearly not enough. The NFL, the Dallas Cowboys, and the reporters who interviewed Hardy could all still do way better. Many kudos to Nolan for pointing it out.

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post Katie Nolan Says What Everyone is Thinking About the NFL and Domestic Violence appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this week, “Empire” star Terrance Howard confessed that he hit his first ex-wife, describing that he “lost his mind” and “slapped her in front of the kids.” This confession isn’t exactly coming out of left field. Over the last couple of years in his various marriages, Howard has been accused of slapping, punching, and strangling his partners, living up the dark nature of his character on “Empire,” Lucious Lyon. Howard attempted to justify his deplorable, violent behavior with his first wife Lori McCommas by saying that she was talking to him “real strong.” With his second wife, Michelle Ghent, Howard claims that she tried to “mace him” and that he didn’t mean to hurt her, he was just trying to get her away. Howard’s relationship with his most recent wife, Mira Pak, appeared to be healthy and strong, until she mysteriously filed for divorce earlier this year.

Although Howard’s relationships have all been multi-cultural, this situation still brings up important issues of black love and the relationship between black men and women. The media’s coverage of black celebrity figures’ violence against women opens up different conversations about dynamics within relationships, but black relationships are the least discussed.

But they shouldn’t be. Black women have notoriously been at the forefront of movements standing up for issues that plague black men. Black women have historically fiercely defended the rights and desires of black men. During the civil rights movement it was women–wives, daughters, sisters, cousins, mothers, and grandmothers–who stood up for not only their own issues but those of their brothers, friends, fathers, and husbands. During the 1992 Rodney King riots, we saw black women weeping for black men, and accepting the harsh reality that the police were their enemy. Even now with the Black Lives Matter movement, we see black women leading the charge to remedy this social issue that directly attacks black men. Black women have taken on the social issues that have plagued black men for the last couple of decades.

However, this support is not reciprocated. Hardly ever do you see black men standing up for issues regarding and experienced by black women. Black men often do not speak up for issues of beauty, professional advancement, abuse, assault, and general vulnerabilities that are unique to the black female community.

Thankfully, we are starting to see a shift in a lack of misrepresentation of black women in the media. Viola Davis, star of the thrilling ABC television series “How to Get Away with Murder,” just won an Emmy for her incredible portrayal of her character, Annalise Keating, giving a spectacular speech on the difficulties and lack of opportunities black women face. Taraji P. Henson, Kerry Washington, and Megan Good are also changing the game, proving that black women are leading women too. This positive representation directly affects black relationships and love. The more it is widely understood that black women are real, strong people who are overcoming yet still dealing with issues that are a part of their identity, the quality of these relationships and communication within them will be transformed. The media plays such a pivotal role in this transformation, and it is so exciting seeing the growth of positive representation of black women in television and film, regardless of the actions of some of Hollywood’s leading men like Terrence Howard.

Hopefully this growth will motivate black men to act proactively in supporting the advance of black women in society. It is going to take more than black women speaking up to start to change the nature of not only black relationships, but society in general. Silence and inaction is the equivalent of destruction. Support can only lead to success for all.

Kui Mwai

Kui Mwai is a junior at American University, studying Law and Literature. She is from Nairobi, Kenya. Contact Kui at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Terrence Howard Reveals Domestic Violence: Do Black Men Support Black Women? appeared first on Law Street.

Natalie Allman, a 29-year-old mother of two, is a victim of domestic abuse. In 2012 the Hereford, England native was beaten with a dumbbell and had her throat slashed by her then-fiance Jason Hughes, 42. His reason for assaulting the mother of his children–he wanted to make her look ugly as a punishment for breaking up with him.

The savage attack lasted for seven hours in the couple’s home in Ross-on-Wye, Herefordshire, with both of their young twin sons watching. Luckily Allman survived the attack and found justice when her ex, a former territorial army soldier, was sentenced to nine years in prison for the attack. Unfortunately, this justice has strings attached.

She is being forced to send her abuser letters in jail with updates on their five-year-old twin boys, and if she doesn’t comply she could end up in jail.

Mum whose ex cut her throat ordered to WRITE to him in prison #NatalieAllman #Britain http://t.co/fs0A0EDeZ7 pic.twitter.com/PNfnts9LTw

— Trending UK News (@UKolizer) February 14, 2015

In January, Hughes applied for a residence and contact order requesting six letters a year as well as phone calls with updates on his children in accordance with the United Kingdom’s Children Act of 1989. Allman, who still bears a visible scar along her throat from the attack, fought back, spending £3,000 in legal fees. However, a judge still ordered her to send him three letters a year on their school progress, health, and emotional development. If she doesn’t comply, she could face a fine or jail time.

The act was designed to make the best arrangements for children after their parents split up, but in this case, the judge’s decision sounds like it’s more for the benefit of the abuser than his children. It’s textbook re-victimization. Distraught after the ruling, Allman told the Sunday People:

We are the victims, not him. I thought he was going to kill me that night for no reason and my boys saw that.

They were terrified. I’m so angry that the law still defends his parental rights and that he is still being allowed to control us from behind bars.

As far as I’m concerned he gave up the right to contact with any of us the night he attacked me but the court doesn’t see it that way.

What about our rights to get on with our lives and forget the trauma he put us through? As long as we are in constant contact how are we going to do that?

For her safety, the letters he writes go to Allman’s father’s home so that Hughes does not know her new address.

A change.org petition asking the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State Justice Chris Grayling to review the contact order has been started in Allman’s name. In the petition, her supporters claim this order will only perpetuate revictimization stating:

This is nothing more than psychological torture that prolongs the suffering of an abuse victim and her traumatised children. Every birthday a card arrives, and every letter she receives is a cruel reminder of the control he continues to assert over her behind bars.

As of this morning over 18,500 supporters have electronically signed the online petition. They need only 6,500 more to reach their goal of 25,000. Hopefully Grayling listens to the public outcry for this woman. She didn’t survive almost being killed to relive that torture for the rest of her life.

Alexis Evans

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

The post English Abuse Victim Forced to Write Letters to Her Jailed Attacker appeared first on Law Street.

Copyright law took center stage last week as not one but two famous singers took vendors and fans to court over their intellectual property. The number one article of the week is from Anneliese Mahoney who brought us the case of Katy Perry versus the vendor who produced 3-D figures of the infamous “Left Shark” from Perry’s Superbowl halftime performance; the second most popular post was from writer Morgan McMurray who threw the flag on “50 Shades of Grey” and its abusive storyline; and the number three article, from writer Alexis Evans, details Taylor Swift’s legal action against Etsy vendors making a buck off her song lyrics. ICYMI, here is the best of the week from Law Street.

#1 Katy Perry Claims Left Shark is Her Intellectual Property and Files Suit

Katy Perry’s halftime performance at last week’s Super Bowl was really great, but it wasn’t without its moments of humor. Unfortunately, one of those moments of humor has now sparked the pop star’s legal team to file a lawsuit. Read full article here.

#2 Fifty Shades of Grey and Abuse

You may have heard of a small erotic “novel” (I use the term loosely), which once started off as Twilight fan fiction and has become a worldwide, bestselling trilogy soon to be a major motion picture. I am of course referring to the phenomenon known as Fifty Shades of Grey by E.L. James, which follows the story of timid Anastasia Steele and her BDSM-loving boyfriend Christian Grey. Read full article here.

#3 Taylor Swift vs. Etsy Vendors: Singer Trademarks Song Phrases

America’s red-lipped singing sweetheart Taylor Swift is at the center of another intellectual property dispute, this time with vendors on Etsy. The dispute is over several items, including t-shirts using her likeness and candles adorned with her lyrics. Swift’s legal team sent several vendors on the online DIY marketplace cease and desist letters demanding the immediate removal of their trademark-infringing products. 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.

You may have heard of a small erotic “novel” (I use the term loosely), which once started off as Twilight fan fiction and has become a worldwide, bestselling trilogy soon to be a major motion picture. I am of course referring to the phenomenon known as Fifty Shades of Grey by E.L. James, which follows the story of timid Anastasia Steele and her BDSM-loving boyfriend Christian Grey.

I take several issues with the books, not the least of which being the absolutely atrocious writing. I tried and failed to get through the first book mainly due to the horrible prose, but also because–like the series it is based off of–the main relationship is so obviously abusive.

If you haven’t put yourself through the torture of reading them, don’t worry! You can see the whole toxic love story play out on the big screen when it comes out on Valentine’s Day (no obvious commercialization there…). I would never pay money to see it, though I am curious as to whether the movie will portray the undertones of abuse and rape that were so prevalent in the books.

Please note, this is not a critique on people who live a BDSM sexual lifestyle. It is my understanding that those who do follow strict rules to maintain safety and enjoyment for everyone involved. In Fifty Shades of Grey, that is not really the case. Christian Grey uses his role of Dominant to ensure Anastasia’s submissiveness in literally every aspect of her life. It is fiction, but unfortunately, many women live in a constant state of fear from their physically and mentally abusive and controlling partners–men like Christian Grey. These women do not give their permission to be treated thus, but instead are forced to stay in violent relationships based on threats and low self-esteem.

This sort of abuse should not be romanticized, yet that is what we find in this best-selling trilogy, lauded for allowing women the freedom to express their sexuality. While it certainly did bring romantic literature to the forefront and got millions interested in bondage and S&M, women’s sexuality is so much more complex than what the dangerous story line in these books portrays. If we are looking for a book that encompasses and celebrates a woman’s right to whatever sexual fetishes she chooses, there are definitely better stories (and better written stories) out there.

So this Valentine’s Day, instead of celebrating and encouraging abuse, let’s celebrate the stories of those survivors who got away from toxic relationships, and bring attention to the fact that domestic violence and rape are very real, very horrible things that exist in our world.

For more information on how you can prevent abusive relationships, visit the National Domestic Violence hotline website.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fifty Shades of Grey and Abuse appeared first on Law Street.

Did you watch President Obama make the Republicans cry Tuesday night?

Yeah you did! Because you’re smart and well informed and give a crap about where this nation is headed, am I right?

Obviously.

So today, instead of reacting to the SOTU—because let’s be real, you’ve read a thousand of those pieces by now already—we’re going to talk about something a little less official. A little more ridiculous. A little more—Meninist.

Yep, that’s right. Meninist is a word now. Thanks, Men.

But who is a Meninist, you ask, and what in fuck’s name is Meninism? Sadly, it’s not an adjective used to describe a person who is both a zealous believer in Leninism and also suffering from meningitis.

I love the word #meninist. It cleverly combines the painful brain inflammation of “meningitis” with the doomed zeal of “Leninist”.

— Tom Freeman (@SnoozeInBrief) January 17, 2015

We’re sorry, Tom Freeman. We like your definition a whole lot better.

Nope. In fact, Meninism is a sad little play on Feminism, because those goddamn men’s rights activists are so fucking convinced that their lives are super hard and women are out to get them.

All together now.

UGGHHH.

So basically, the Meninist movement has gone something like this, so far.

Men started tweeting at each other with a cute little Meninist hashtag. It started out as a joke (rolling my eyes so hard right now), and then morphed into an outlet where people with penises could bitch about how hard it is to be a man in the twenty-first century.

The first challenge, it seems, is spelling. #MeninistTwitter and #MenimistTwitter are used interchangeably across this little trend, which I think is probably the funniest detail about this whole thing.

Anyway! After these dick-swingers had built up something of a Twitter community, some entrepreneurial folks decided to capitalize on this jackassery and make some merch.

Courtesy of Teespring.com.

And so was born the Meninist T-shirt and hoodie combo. Douche canoes galore are modeling their swag proudly on Twitter.

Look what came in the mail #Meninism #meninist pic.twitter.com/cCJGMgDMzZ

— Evan Conway (@evandotconway) January 15, 2015

And some of them are even totally not-ironic women! Because men need equal rights too, guys. It’s just so unfair that they get to make more money than women do, spend less on their cost of living (having a vagina is expensive, yo), participate less in childrearing and other household tasks, and control the vast majority of corporate and governing bodies across the globe.

Supporting equal rights @MeninistTweet #meninist pic.twitter.com/ZBqssfyFXG

— Paige (@tubapay) January 16, 2015

So much power, so little justice.

Folks, I can’t. And apparently, neither can a lot of you! Because some wonderful feminists also took to Twitter to mock and ridicule these Meninist fuckers, because COME ON. This shit is ridiculous.

Fixed the meninist tshirt guys pic.twitter.com/JgM3LT1dUP

— Emily ReyNOlds (@rey_z) January 19, 2015

the "I'm never getting laid" starter pack: pic.twitter.com/dfQXxhfbDw

— Kuh-Reem (@WTFKAREEM) January 17, 2015

noticed a little typo in the new #meninist hoodies, so i thought i'd help out! pic.twitter.com/7E4NuEdC1b

— Inglourious Beanpole (@ladyepicenter) January 17, 2015

You folks are heroes.

But, all jokes aside, this Meninist crap is genuinely not okay, and here’s why.

A feminist is, by definition, “a person who believes in the social, political and economic equality of the sexes.” Thanks for defining this baggage-laden, complicated term in such a straightforward way, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie! We love you.

So, here’s the thing. If you’re not a feminist—or, if you’re like these Meninist jerks who are actively taking a stand against feminism—that means that you don’t believe in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.

Got that?

You’re cheering for inequality and oppression. That’s what you’re fighting for. That’s really fucking shitty, guys.

Now, to be fair, a lot of these Meninists don’t seem to be holding up signs telling women to get back in the kitchen. (Although a fair amount of them are pissed off that we don’t want to see their dicks.) They aren’t actively calling for the vag-havers to be oppressed. Instead, they’re just looking for some sympathy.

These seemingly reasonable Meninists are simply saying that equality between the sexes has already been achieved, and so feminism has become obsolete. Anyone who STILL identifies as a feminist is actually a man-hater, looking to reach beyond simple gender equality and over toward flipping the power dynamic, leaving men in the oppressed position that women used to be in before we got equal rights and all.

To those Meninists, I say, UNTRUE.

Gender equality has not been achieved. This is not a real thing.

Women are still paid less on average than their male counterparts. Women are still disproportionately at the mercy of domestic and sexual violence, which (not coincidentally) are crimes that are disproportionately committed by men. Women are still responsible for a greater share of the household and childrearing responsibilities. Women are still more likely to live in poverty, more likely to have difficulty accessing quality health care, and more likely to be single parents.

Why are all of these things happening?

In part, it’s because of shitty legislation. The Equal Rights Amendment never passed, meaning that it’s still legal to deny or abridge the legal rights of women simply because they have vaginas. There are also a shit ton of laws out there that specifically bar us from maintaining control over our own bodies or accessing the health care we need.

These are the problems that are officially on the books.

But off the books? We’re in trouble there too.

As a culture, women are almost exclusively valued as objects, not people. We’re treated like ornaments to be admired, fetus incubators to be legislated, pieces of ass to be fucked. When compared to men, women are literally paid less and raped more—and that’s because we aren’t valued as highly as men are.

So, to all the Meninists complaining about how fucking hard it is to be a man in the twenty-first century:

You’re missing the point.

Feminism isn’t about making life hard for you, and if you think it is, then you’re acting like a self-involved brat. Please wake the fuck up.

Women want to be valued and respected. We want to live in a world where social, political, and economic equality is a real thing.

And we want you to stop whining about it and get the fuck out of our way.

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Misogynists Are At it Again, Now With T-Shirts! appeared first on Law Street.

The legal side of book and magazine publishing has been off to a fast start in 2015. Check out updates below on three of the most recent cases.

Cosmopolitan Magazine

Andrew Cerett, a former Temple University football player, filed a lawsuit against his ex-girlfriend, Emily Frazer, and Cosmopolitan magazine for defamation, claiming that the magazine ruined his reputation and his potential NFL career after publishing an article entitled, “My Ex Threatened to Kill Me. Why Wasn’t He Expelled,” which appeared in the October 2014 issue.

Cerett and Frazer met each other at Temple University where Cerett was a punter on the school’s football team and Frazer played on the volleyball team. Cerett’s complaint, however, centers on the end of their relationship. Cerett states that Frazer wrote the article with freelance writer Roxanne Patel Shepleavy, which included a photo of Cerett as well as a fictionalized story of how they ended their relationship “at an alcohol-fueled weekend dorm party on or about January 21, 2011,” according to the complaint.

In his own story, however, Cerett claims that both parties became angry with each other, and although Cerett slammed his fist on a kitchen table, he never harmed Frazer. Campus officials arrested Cerrett, but they did not press charges against him. The campus board found Cerett guilty of intimidation and disorderly conduct but did not charge him with stalking or harassment.

Frazer’s article contends that after the breakup, Cerett had a mission to destroy Frazer, and the complaint states that the article portrayed Cerett as a violent thug. In light of the recent domestic violence cases against several NFL players, most notably Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson, Cerett believes that the Cosmo article may prevent him from pursuing his lifelong dream of becoming an NFL player because NFL teams would not want to draft him or sign him as a free agent.

HathiTrust

Last week, the Authors Guild dropped its lawsuit against HathiTrust. In 2011, the Authors Guild sued HathiTrust because it believe it created a database that included millions of unauthorized scans created by Google. The federal district court, however, sided with HathiTrust, and the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals soon reaffirmed the district court’s decision.  Publishers Weekly noted that HathiTrust would notify the Authors Guild if it decides to change its practices in the next five years.

Georgia State University

In a related case that publishers have been keenly watching in Cambridge University Press et al. v. Patton et al., the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the plaintiff publishers’ request to hear the case en banc by every judge in the Eleventh Circuit. The Eleventh Circuit originally only had a panel of three judges hear the case. The request was unusual because the three-judge panel held in favor of the publishers after reversing the federal district court’s decision. The suit originally commenced when three academic publishers, Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, and SAGE Publications, sued Georgia State University for allegedly engaging in authorized copying and distribution of copyrighted works by the publishers through GSU’s e-reserve system.

Joseph Perry

Joseph Perry is a graduate of St. John’s University School of Law whose goal is to become a publishing and media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and volunteering at the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries. Contact Joe at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 2015 Is Off To A Fast Start for the Legal Side of Publishing appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

I was trying really hard to keep my opinion to myself when it came to the Ray Rice, Adrian Peterson, and Jonathan Dwyer domestic violence cases, but I just can’t anymore.

Last night I watched as many different male commentators shared their opinions on ESPN about all things domestic violence and what the NFL should do, and then I read an article this morning that has irritated me beyond belief. Female Soccer star Hope Solo was arrested and charged with domestic violence back in June but there is little coverage of the story. The only news I found about her recently is that she set a new “record while awaiting domestic violence trial.” So Hope gets to live her life, play the sport that she loves, and silently await trial for not only causing injury to a child but also to her sister. Now reports say that she was drunk at the time, which is no excuse! No matter if you are sober, drunk, or have some crazy sleep disorder that causes you to hit someone you should not be left on a pedestal while others are ostracized for causing bodily harm to others as well.

I do not support domestic violence and I certainly have a problem with any woman who states “I don’t believe in domestic violence, but I will say: any woman who can hit a man, a man shouldn’t have to sit there and take the abuse. The abuse goes both ways.” This Ray Rice fan, only identified as Kathy, is out of her mind! No one needs to be laying a hand on anyone in a violent manner. Ever. Both men and women should be able to exercise restraint, you are adults!

Do I believe in corporal punishment? Absolutely. But there is a difference between corporal punishment and domestic violence. Domestic violence is defined as “violent or aggressive behavior within the home, typically involving the violent abuse of a spouse or partner.” Corporal punishment is defined as “punishment administered by an adult (as a parent or a teacher) to the body of a child ranging in severity from a slap to a spanking.”

So while Ray Rice is now an ex-NFL player, Adrian Peterson is on the NFL’s “exempt” list (what is that, like Santa’s naughty and nice list?), and who knows what will happen to Jonathan Dwyer, little miss Hope Solo was able to apologize to the public and go back to work. How is this fair? After all these years of women wanting to be treated as equals we go and do this. We allow a woman to hit not one but two people, apologize, and then go back to work and be praised for a 72nd shutout game with her national team?

Men can’t hit women or children, but apparently women can hit men, women, and children while still being able to go about their lives without being judged by the public and no actions are taken from the league she works for? Yes, her charges seem to be misdemeanors but an arrest and a trial, that is enough for me to feel the need to ostracize her and state that she should have been yanked from the league until her trial was over and resolved.

We do things differently in the south. We were all raised on the idea of getting a spanking. In fact, there may have been a time or two where my Mississippi grandmother would order me outside to the weeping willow tree to grab a switch because I had done something wrong. In all honesty I don’t remember if I ever got a whipping but the threat of it and making me pick out my switch was enough to make me not act up again. I also had a father who was a true military man through and through. I would have to say, in my eyes, my dad was a mix of John Wayne and General Patton. All he ever had to do was give a look and I knew not to do what I was about to do. That is the kind of fear we need to instill in our children today. We shouldn’t coddle them, but we also shouldn’t have to actually harm them, that fear is enough. (For me at least, until I got into my teenage years, but that’s a different story.) I love my dad but even to this day he could scare me to death with that look.

Hope needs a reality check. You don’t get to hit people — even if you’re drunk — and still have a career that influences young women all over the world. Many claim that Rice, Peterson, and Dwyer were role models to children. So is Hope. Maybe, as a parent, you should want your child’s role model to be someone in the community and not a celebrity.

Can we also remember that domestic violence is NOT just violence against women! Women beat their husbands and children, too. We can’t spend weeks talking about the male athletes charged with domestic violence like Rice, Peterson, and Dwyer without acknowledging Solo. It’s sexist and full of exclusion.

—

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

Featured image courtesy of [love @ll via Flickr]

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 Men Aren’t the Only Superstar Athletes Charged with Domestic Violence appeared first on Law Street.

The strange, long, and twisted tale that was the death of Reeva Steenkamp, girlfriend of Olympic athlete Oscar Pistorius, has started to reach its close. Pistorius was found guilty of culpable homicide in the Steenkamp case.

Oscar Pistorius is a South American athlete who made history by being the first double amputee in the Olympic Games, and has an incredibly impressive Paralympics resume.

But on the morning of February 14, 2013, that all changed. Pistorius shot and killed his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp through the locked bathroom door. She was a South African model, and the pair had been dating for three months. Pistorius admitted from the beginning that he had shot her, but claimed that he had thought that she was an intruder.

The facts that came out during the subsequent trial were dark. In addition to the being put on trial for killing Steenkamp, Pistorius also faced two charges for illegal handling of his firearms, and a fourth charge for illegal possession of some of the ammunition that was found in his home after Steenkamp was killed.

During the trial, a break was taken so that Pistorius could be evaluated by doctors and receive a psychiatric evaluation. He has been diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder, which was used by the defense to explain his concern about an intruder in his home on the morning of February 14. Merryll Vorster, a forensic psychiatrist who testified during the trial, explained that Pistorious’ anxiety disorder was most likely why he always slept with a firearm under his pillow. Vorster also explained that Pistorius did not have his prosthetics on when he shot at the door, indicating that a fight mechanism may have been ignited in Pistorious — he literally could not flee.

Judge Thokozile Matilda Masipa stated on Thursday that Pistorius was not going to be found guilty of murder, but left the other charges for Friday.

The culpable homicide verdict, announced Friday, translated into American justice system terms, essentially means that he was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter. He acted negligently when he shot four shots through his closed door without knowing who or what was on the other side. He won’t actually be sentenced until next month, and what his sentence will actually end up being has a huge range. He could serve up to fifteen years in prison, or a sentence that is significantly shorter. Judge Masipa has received significant criticism for her ruling.

Given that no one will really ever know what happened in Pistorius’ house that fated Valentine’s Day morning, the verdict is understandable. Yet there is still a lot of backlash from those who believe it’s not quite enough. And Pistorious’ actions after receiving the verdict don’t do too much to help him. He has said that he’s going to write a book to tell his side of the story, and the South African Olympic Committee has said he is free to run again once he finishes his sentence.

However, the good thing about these much-watched celebrity trials is that occasionally they are high-profile enough to create a national conversation. As Steenkamp’s father put it:

This case in a very strange way has opened a window into people’s lives in South Africa, the way they feel they need to defend themselves with extreme force. People need to think about this.

The story was disturbing, the trial concerning, and the death of Steenkamp incredibly tragic. Yet trials like this do have the opportunity to say something for a nation; hopefully South Africa is listening.

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 Pistorius Verdict Opens Dialogue About Defense, But is South Africa Listening? appeared first on Law Street.

Baltimore Ravens player Ray Rice has been removed from his team and suspended indefinitely by the NFL. The move came after a video surfaced of Ray Rice hitting his then-fiancee in an elevator. She was knocked unconscious in the February 15 incident, and then was dragged out of the elevator. She has since married Rice, but the video just made its way into the public consciousness.

The video is below, but I do have to warn you that it’s pretty disturbing.

Now when allegations of domestic abuse first surfaced against Rice, he was originally just suspended for two games. The NFL claims that they didn’t know the full extent of the incident between Rice and Janay, now his wife. “Claim” is the important phrase there. There’s some speculation that the NFL did have access to the damning video, but at this point it’s unknown whether that’s true or not. Sports Illustrated’s Peter King, one of the most well-known sports reporters around, claimed earlier that the NFL had seen the video; he has since recanted that statement. Chris Mortenson, from ESPN, references that this video existed back in July, although he doesn’t confirm whether or not NFL or Ravens officials had seen it.

So, to sum up, we’ve known this video existed for a while. The Ravens and/or NFL officials claim they didn’t see it, despite making inquiries to the police. However, a member of the Ravens’ PR team did send an email to Deadspin, saying:

Only thing we know for sure is that police who arrested Ray and Janay and then let them leave together that night saw the video.

The meaning behind that statement isn’t hard to figure out. The Ravens were essentially saying, “Well we have no idea what happened, but he was allowed to leave with her, right guys???”

That’s pretty crappy logic, and it’s especially bad logic on which to base a punishment. Before the outcry when this video was released, the NFL gave Rice a two-game suspension. They didn’t have all the facts, they didn’t have that video, but they clearly knew it existed. So instead of waiting for the evidence, and playing it safe in the meantime, they just went ahead and arbitrarily created a punishment for him. At least that’s what they expect us to believe, and I understand why, because its certainly better than the alternative — that they knew exactly what had happened in that elevator, gave him a measly two-game punishment, and then rolled it back after their PR nightmare.

No one should be applauding the Ravens for cutting Rice, or the NFL for suspending him indefinitely. They’re doing that to, for complete lack of a better term, cover their own asses. They’re trying to hide the fact that the they either a) didn’t do their jobs and look into the incident appropriately or b) suspended him for only two games despite having seen the evidence. Either way, they do not deserve our applause.

It shouldn’t be a surprise — the NFL is, after all, a business. They’re going to do what serves them the most profit, and avoids the most bad publicity. That’s profit driven too — the worse your publicity, the more you have to pay people to handle it, the more people complain, the less satisfied your customers are. It’s similar to Donald Sterling’s situation with the NBA — they didn’t do anything until the public outcry developed.

The NFL deserves no praise for the way they’ve handled this. They did their job belatedly and poorly. Instead of applauding them for their actions over the last year, we should demand that they do it right if there is, god forbid, another incident like this.

—

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 [m01229 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 Job Poorly Done: The NFL’s Handling of Ray Rice appeared first on Law Street.

One out of every five cases of violent victimization in America is domestic violence. You read that correctly — one out of five, according to the latest National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Published in April, this report illustrates a disturbing yet unsurprising state of affairs.

Just over half of all domestic violence cases involving intimate partners or immediate family members during this period were reported to police (56 percent), while just under half of cases of victimization by other family members were reported (49 percent). In addition to the 23 percent of domestic violence victimizations, another 32 percent were perpetrated by “well-known/casual acquaintances.” More than half of all violent victimizations, then, are committed by offenders known by the victim. In general, violence is not random.

Violence Against Women 

When all violent crimes are considered, men are slightly more likely to be victimized than women. However, in terms of domestic violence women are more often the victims, making up 76 percent of all such incidents. This is especially the case in intimate partner violence (IPV), which shows an even larger gap: an 82-18 percent disparity between women and men, respectively. IPV is also the most prevalent and injurious form of domestic violence.

The recent campaign “Bring Back Our Girls” has been powerful in that it created rallying cry, worldwide, against the discrimination of women. While the energy behind it is purely positive, I think that America forgets about its own issues too often. We take pride when scolding other nations for their de jure systems of oppression. As a recent World Bank report illustrates, it is not a crime to restrict women in many countries. Rather, their restriction is a part of the legal system. Active government constraint of the freedoms that women deserve is not (as) prevalent in the United States. But it remains shameful, or criminal, that our government can ignore domestic violence to the extent that it does.

Action For Women

IPV can be associated with poverty. As the World Bank report states, “Intimate partner violence (IPV) is more frequent and severe among poorer groups across such diverse countries as India, Nicaragua, and the United States.” Our lawmakers can do something by restructuring the tax code and revitalizing government programs. Getting rid of loopholes while lowering all brackets’ rates could actually increase revenue and make room for stronger assistance programs. Of course this means that reforming welfare and SNAP will have to be taken seriously.

Undocumented citizen status may also exacerbate IPV. As SafeHouse Denver describes, there are a host of methods used by aggressors against immigrant women to keep them from reporting domestic violence. Our lawmakers can do something by reforming immigration laws, reducing harsh enforcement, and making the path to citizenship more accessible. In turn, that would make it more difficult for abusers to discourage immigrant women from seeking help.

IPV can turn into homicide when firearms are involved. The annual “When Men Murder Women” report by the Violence Policy Center shows the relationship between firearm homicide and domestic violence. Our lawmakers can do something by mandating tougher restrictions on guns, which may reduce the number of domestic violence cases that become fatal. Because fatal domestic violence cases go unrecorded by the NCVS, this issue is even greater than the recent report may suggest.

Ending the Trend

Cultural change has the power to reshape the way we raise our children, it has the power to reshape the way partners treat each other, and it has the power to reshape how students behave on college campuses. However, we cannot rely solely on social movements. The political structure and our government’s actions must reflect, and catalyze, the social shifts on the ground. Yes, we need to advocate for cultural change. Yes, all women. Yes, all men. But it would be remiss to not demand policies that can diminish IPV. If we are to truly champion the end of domestic violence, the end of sexual assault, and the end of a system that leaves so many women battered, it will be necessary to call on our government to make changes. Especially when solutions would be beneficial in so many other policy areas, it is criminal that our politicians are not doing more to combat domestic violence.

___

Jake Ephros (@JakeEphros)

Featured image courtesy of [US Military via Wikimedia]

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Domestic Violence: Ending the Trend appeared first on Law Street.

While the city of Toronto collectively wonders where in the world its mayor, Rob Ford, is today — Rehab? The U.S? Eating a sandwich at the corner deli? — we thought it’s the perfect time to take a walk down memory lane. Are Rob Ford’s 15 minutes of fame winding down? Doesn’t seem like it — this most recent sparkling example of stupidity was just released today.

The Toronto Sun released this video showing our favorite beleaguered crack head mayor ranting in a bar. It’s quite spectacular, especially it means that Ford has apparently mastered being in two places at once, given that he’s currently supposed to be in rehab and his family claims that he has not left rehab since being admitted. Rob Ford is saying some pure gold in this video, my favorite being: “I’m nodding here. I’m in f—ing divorce and going to the f—ing doghouse and going in a hotel. (Inaudible) I don’t know what to say.”   

Unrelated but awesome.

Oh yeah, Rob Ford’s doing as well as always. And if you like that video, make sure to check out 15 other ridiculous Rob Ford moments below.

Click here to read the original post published November 20, 2013.

Bumbling Toronto Mayor Rob Ford has made waves in recent weeks for the revelation that he once smoked crack while “in a drunken stupor” this February. I’d love to say that this was the only dumb thing Mayor Ford has ever done, but where would the fun be in that? Let’s look at a countdown of Mayor Ford’s oddest, most embarrassing, and downright idiotic moments.

15. That one time the Toronto City Council tried to strip him of his power after the crack smoking scandal and he compared his side of the story to…The Gulf War.

“This, folks, reminds me of when — and I was watching with my brother — when Saddam attacked Kuwait. And President Bush said, ‘I warn you, I warn you, I warn you, do not.’ Well, folks, if you think American-style politics is nasty, you guys have just attacked Kuwait. Mark my words, friends, this is going to be outright war in the next election, and I’m going to do everything in my power — everything in my power — to beat you guys.”

Why it’s cringeworthy: C’mon, Mayor Ford. The Gulf War, really? I hope we’re not talking about that Gulf War where tens of thousands of people were killed. You’re comparing your reelection campaign to a deadly war? A+ for complete lack of sensitivity.

14. In 2002, when Mayor Ford was a City Councilor, there was a discussion about putting a homeless shelter in his district. Mayor Ford made the always eloquent point that instead of having a “public meeting” about said homeless shelter, maybe a “public lynching” would be more appropriate.

Why it’s cringeworthy: Do I even have to answer this one? This wasn’t Mayor Ford standing up for his constituents like he claimed, it was him being a gigantic jerk about a legitimate proposal. That doesn’t really incite compassion in the hearts of those who should be voting for him.

13.  In 2006, Mayor Ford went to a Toronto Maple Leafs game. Mayor Ford got wasted. Mayor Ford then got kicked out of the Toronto Maple Leafs game. He got kicked out because he was screaming at, berating, and swearing at a nice couple from out of town.

(Image Courtesy: Wikimedia)

Why it’s cringeworthy: Why was he screaming at some random Toronto visitors? Did they root for the other team or something? Now, I’m not going to pretend I know that much about Toronto tourism, but it seems to me like that is not a good way to get anyone to visit your city.

12. Number 12 on my list is a nice followup on Number 13. After the news broke that Mayor Ford was kicked out of a hockey game, he had a great excuse: he claimed he was never even at the game. He originally told the Toronto Star: “This is unbelievable. I wasn’t even at the game, so someone’s trying to do a real hatchet job on me, let me tell you.” Eventually he had to admit that he was there, and just said that he had been irresponsible and wasn’t perfect.

Why it’s cringeworthy: Dude, we live in a world where everyone has a camera, or a camera phone, or something. It’s pretty hard to deny that you weren’t at a public event. It’s not even a good try.

11. At that same City Council Meeting where Mayor Ford compared his life to the Gulf War, he absolutely plowed into a woman while trying to walk.

Why it’s cringeworthy: Nothing says “let me keep running this city” and “I’m totally not on drugs” like being really, embarrassingly, uncoordinated.

10. In 2007, Mayor Ford said that if a bicyclist gets hit by a car it’s definitely the bicyclist’s fault. He also compared bike lanes to “swimming with the sharks.” My favorite part of this clip, though? Definitely the last sentence: “My heart bleeds for him when I hear someone gets killed, but it’s their own fault at the end of the day.”

Why it’s cringeworthy: Lack of understanding about the difference between sharks and humans driving cars aside, there is a huge logical fallacy to Mayor Ford’s argument. He says roads are dangerous and people shouldn’t be cycling. Then he goes on to say that therefore, the implementation of bike lanes, which would make this all safer, is a bad idea. Mayor Ford, that is not how logic works, but good try!

9. Mayor Ford’s use of the term “Orientals.” He stated:

“Those Oriental people work like dogs … they sleep beside their machines. The Oriental people, they’re slowly taking over … they’re hard, hard workers.”

Why it’s cringeworthy: Are you kidding me?

8. In 2011, a Canadian comedian showed up at his door pretending to be a journalist and asking him satirical questions. It’s also probably important to note that she was dressed like Xena, Warrior Princess. Weird comedy show aside, a rational response to this is not to call the police, as Mayor Ford did. In an expletive-filled 911 call, he claimed he was “attacked.”

Why it’s cringeworthy: Because it displays he has no sense of humor. Because it also displays a complete overreaction to a comedic stunt. And, because he apparently said to the dispatcher, “”Don’t you f***** know? I’m Rob f****** Ford, the mayor of this city.” Oof.

7. A former mayoral candidate, Sarah Thomson, ran into Mayor Ford at a political function about 9 months ago.  Ms. Thomson is a pretty woman, and no one seems to appreciate that more than Mayor Ford. He reportedly grabbed her butt and then told her she should have joined him in Florida a week earlier, because his wife wasn’t there. She later posted this picture to her Facebook:

Why it’s cringeworthy: At first I thought I was going to make a comment about not grabbing women’s butts in public, but I think Thomson covered it with her Facebook comment. So let’s all take a minute to appreciate the face he’s making in this picture instead.

6. Speaking of Rob Ford and women….he’s had a veritable plethora of problems with his wife and other female members of his family. On Christmas day in 2011, his mother-in-law had to call the cops because he was drunk, threatened to kidnap the couple’s children, and bring them to Florida.

Why it’s cringeworthy: A) Doesn’t he have better things to do? Like, I don’t know, run a city? and B) She made the call sometime between 4 AM and 5 AM. Who in the world is drunk and trying to go to Florida at 4 in the morning?

5. …To continue number 6, there have been multiple calls from Mayor Ford’s house alleging domestic abuse. On at least one occasion, both he and his wife may have been drunk or under the influence of drugs when the police showed up.

Why it’s cringeworthy: I seriously considered not including this one on the list, I really did. It’s about domestic abuse, and domestic abuse is not something that should ever be joked about it. But I did include it, because as funny and snarky as this list is supposed to be, there is a point. Mayor Ford is an idiot. He is unfit for office, and he should be embarrassed by the things he’s done. ALL of the things he’s done. And not shaming this man for his actions against his family and women…well that’s just unacceptable.

4. He used his mayoral letterhead to try to solicit donations for his high school football charity. In my opinion, that’s a little illegal, and a judge agreed.

Image Courtesy: Flickr

Why it’s cringeworthy: Mayor Ford’s defense? He didn’t know he wasn’t supposed to use his position to solicit funds from his own charity. In a bizarre move, an appeals judge actually agreed with that argument, and he was ultimately not removed from office.

3. As a Councillor in 2006, Rob Ford rallied against an AIDS prevention program, stating about the disease, “It is very preventable. If you are not doing needles and you are not gay, you will not get AIDS probably, that’s the bottom line. These are the facts.”

Image courtesy: Toronto Life

Why it’s cringeworthy: When I first started making this list, I was calm and sitting on my couch. I’m still sitting on my couch, but now I’m not calm and I’m working my way through a very large pile of leftover Halloween candy to soothe my soul. It’s not working, because I keep running across statements like this. These are not the facts, Mayor Ford. They are not. And you should stop talking, forever.

2. That time that Mayor Ford tried to find a drug dealer to buy OxyContin on the street for a constituent. In 2010, a phone call happened where a man claimed his doctor would not prescribe him Oxy. Comments like this were made by Mayor Ford:

“I’ll try buddy, I’ll try,” the councillor replied. “I don’t know this shit, but I’ll f****** try to find it.” A few moments later Mr. Ford asked: “What does OxyContin go for on the street, so I have an idea?”

Image Courtesy: WikiMedia

Why it’s cringeworthy: One hand, decent job trying to help a constituent. On the other, logical, hand, how could saying that ever seem like a good idea?

1. This.

Why it’s cringeworthy: I. Can’t. Stop. Laughing.

—

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 [Shaun Merritt via Wikipedia]

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 Where in the World is Rob Ford? 15 Minutes of Fame, 15 Dumb-Ass Things appeared first on Law Street.

It’s a cliché that’s been played out on every crime procedural on TV: a rich young man, maybe the son of a wealthy family, or maybe a self-made millionaire, commits a horrible crime. And it’s covered up. His family and the people who work for him support him. Sometimes the cops can make a dent and sometimes they can’t. Sometimes they succeed but the courts don’t buy it. I swear, I’ve seen this on every crime show I’ve ever watched — Law & Order: SVU, Bones, Criminal Minds, you name it. And I think the reason that it’s such a powerful theme is because it’s frightening. It’s scary to imagine that there are still people in this country whose money and influence can get them out of the justice system.

And what’s even scarier than imagining such a scenario? When it becomes reality.. There have been not one, but two breaking stories this week that have sent shivers up my spine.

1. Gurbaksh Chahal

The first is the case of Gurbaksh Chahal. He is a self-made multimillionaire who has sold a number of internet startups for quite a pretty penny. At only 31, he has been named America’s most eligible bachelor, released an autobiography, regularly makes inspirational and motivational speeches, and has been interviewed by Oprah Winfrey. Up until a few days ago he was the CEO of RadiumOne, an advertising firm.

He also severely beat his then-girlfriend last summer.

And there’s video evidence of that. A 30-minute recording shows Chahal kicking and hitting his girlfriend 117 times and then trying to smother her. She couldn’t breathe for almost 20 seconds. He told her four times that he was going to kill her. And as a result for his heinous crimes, he faced 45 felony counts. But because a judge ruled the video inadmissible and the ex-girlfriend didn’t end up testifying, he only pled guilty to one battery and one domestic violence battery charge.

So the man who hit his girlfriend over 100 times got 25 hours of community service and three years of probation. Oh, and he has to take a class on not being a shitty person. That’s it.

In some tiny bit of karmic retribution, Chahal has been dismissed from his position as RadiumOne CEO. So, naturally, Chahal thought what was appropriate was to publish a gigantic, inappropriate, and frankly delusional self defense. He now claims that he didn’t hit or injure her, just lost his temper after discovering she was working as a prostitute. He claims that he was the victim of a witch-hunt, the police were after him, and that the video was “bullshit.” And that totally makes sense, right? Because the police have the resources and wherewithal to fabricate a half-hour domestic abuse video for no apparent reason.

So here’s my issue. The man lost almost nothing. Fine, he lost his job, but he clearly didn’t really need that job in the first place. He has plenty of money, probably enough to invest it and make enough to live on for the rest of his life. He has a few years of probation, and a measly 25 hours of community service, but at the end of the day his life isn’t going to change in any real way. Am I saying that the judge should have kept the video in even if he genuinely found it inadmissible? No, definitely not. But for god’s sake, this man can take another woman up to his gorgeous San Francisco penthouse and beat the crap out of her if he wants. Because there’s nothing really stopping him — obviously a fear of breaking the law isn’t going to be enough. And that’s downright terrifying.

2. Jared Remy

So now let’s move across the country to Massachusetts where something equally horrifying is happening. Jerry Remy is pretty much a household name in Red Sox country. He is a former Sox player who’s in the Red Sox Hall of Fame and now works as a broadcaster for the team. But his son, Jared Remy, is pretty much a psycho.

Jared Remy has been the subject of approximately twenty different criminal cases. His charges ranged from elbowing and attacking a police officer to hitting a friend over the head with a glass beer bottle. But for the most part, the cases involve terrorizing and abusing women. He got off essentially scott free. He has been found guilty only twice, and in each of those cases he received a suspended sentence. He has been on plenty of temporary probations, and instead of going to jail for his crimes he was ordered to do things like go home and live with his parents. It’s clear his parents can’t control him, although they’re more than happy to support their son, who is utterly incapable of holding down a job or even trying to do so.

Now he’s accused of murdering his former girlfriend, Jennifer Martel. He’ll go on trial October 7, and honestly, who knows what will happen. The Boston Globe wrote an excellent exposé on Remy about a month ago that categorically goes through every single abject failure of the justice system that put Remy back on the streets to hurt more women time and time again. Finally, with that piece and some other local Boston websites, the story has begun to break regional news, although I’ve seen almost no non-New England outlets pick it up. Maybe the turn of public opinion will make this charge stick. Maybe. Or maybe Remy will be allowed to walk away with a slap on the wrist again.

So what do we have here? Two men. Both extraordinarily wealthy, though through admittedly different means — Chahal was self-made and Remy appears to never have made anything useful in his life. Both seemingly guilty of horrific domestic abuse. And both allowed to walk free. With Chahal it was just once, with Remy it was dozens of times, but in both cases the justice system failed to do its job. It failed to protect the women in these mens’ lives. The crimes they committed aren’t the scary part. It’s the way that they got away with it that makes me feel like I’m sitting in front of my TV watching one of those ubiquitous TV procedurals.

Because hell, that’s much better than accepting that our justice system is allowing Chahal and Remy to get away with what they did.

—

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 [Hilary Dotson 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 Rich Men, Violent Crimes, No Justice appeared first on Law Street.

The world heard about Judge G. Todd Baugh earlier this year when he sentenced a 47-year-old teacher to 31 days in prison for the rape of Cherise Morales. At the time of the assault, Morales was fourteen. She committed suicide before the trial. The sentence was controversial, to say the least. The Montana Attorney General’s office appealed it because it did not meet the state’s mandatory minimum sentencing laws.

Now, Judge Baugh is back in the news for another inappropriate sentence. He was presiding in the sentencing of a man named Pacer Anthony Ferguson. Ferguson is a former felon who has been in and out of jail since he was a teenager. When he was thirteen, he released the emergency brake on a train that rolled down the tracks and killed a man. He had once appeared before Judge Baugh in a felony robbery charge previously in 2003.

The 27-year-old Montana resident beat up his girlfriend in 2012. He punched her repeatedly in the face, fracturing her skull in three places. Her injuries were so severe that a surgeon had to implant a permanent mesh titanium plate in her face. She racked up about $3500 in medical bills. She testified that she is still in pain from the incident, and still has double vision in some instances.

The case was a jury trial, and the jury believed her. Ferguson was found guilty of misdemeanor assault. The prosecution had also charged him of felony aggravated assault, and felony witness tampering, although he was acquitted on those charges.

So the case fell before the embattled Judge G. Todd Baugh for sentencing. Unlike in his last controversial case, he did take advantage of the maximum possible sentencing. He gave Ferguson six months in jail. He also ordered that Ferguson pay for his victim’s hefty medical bills.

And then Judge Baugh added something else to the sentence. He required that Ferguson write out the phrase “boys do not hit girls” 5000 times. He also asked that Ferguson mail the assignment to him once he had finished, but no later than May 23rd, 2014.

Now technically it is a judge’s discretion to choose the punishment, as long as it doesn’t qualify as cruel and unusual, or break any minimum or maximum sentences dictated by the state. For example, in 2008, a Cleveland judge had to sentence a slumlord who had been convicted of breaking multiple building codes. He sentenced the man to live in his own dilapidated house for six-months.

But I think we can all agree that this was a very weird sentence. I’ve never heard of anyone over the age of 13 who has been required to write lines as a punishment. I also don’t know that I’ve ever heard of anyone asked to write lines in real life–the example that comes most quickly to mind is Bart Simpson from “The Simpsons”.

There is a sick kind of beauty to Judge Baugh’s punishment. Every day that he works on writing out those lines, Ferguson will be forced to remember what he did to his girlfriend. Judge Baugh is a controversial judge, no doubt. And I slammed him for the rape case earlier this year as much as anyone else. But I do have to give him credit for the punishment he gave to Ferguson. It’s unusual, but it’s certainly not cruel. It’s a good sentence for a horrible crime.

—

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 [Chris Potter/StockMonkeys.com 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 Montana Judge Gets Creative in Sentencing appeared first on Law Street.

Bumbling Toronto Mayor Rob Ford has made waves in recent weeks for the revelation that he once smoked crack while “in a drunken stupor” this February. I’d love to say that this was the only dumb thing Mayor Ford has ever done, but where would the fun be in that? Let’s look at a countdown of Mayor Ford’s oddest, most embarrassing, and downright idiotic moments.

Courtesy of Shaun Merritt via Flickr.

15. That one time the Toronto City Council tried to strip him of his power after the crack smoking scandal and he compared his side of the story to…The Gulf War.

“This, folks, reminds me of when — and I was watching with my brother — when Saddam attacked Kuwait. And President Bush said, ‘I warn you, I warn you, I warn you, do not.’ Well, folks, if you think American-style politics is nasty, you guys have just attacked Kuwait. Mark my words, friends, this is going to be outright war in the next election, and I’m going to do everything in my power — everything in my power — to beat you guys.”

Why it’s cringeworthy: C’mon, Mayor Ford. The Gulf War, really? I hope we’re not talking about that Gulf War where tens of thousands of people were killed. You’re comparing your reelection campaign to a deadly war? A+ for complete lack of sensitivity.

14. In 2002, when Mayor Ford was a City Councilor, there was a discussion about putting a homeless shelter in his district. Mayor Ford made the always eloquent point that instead of having a “public meeting” about said homeless shelter, maybe a “public lynching” would be more appropriate.

Why it’s cringeworthy: Do I even have to answer this one? This wasn’t Mayor Ford standing up for his constituents like he claimed, it was him being a gigantic jerk about a legitimate proposal. That doesn’t really incite compassion in the hearts of those who should be voting for him.

13.  In 2006, Mayor Ford went to a Toronto Maple Leafs game. Mayor Ford got wasted. Mayor Ford then got kicked out of the Toronto Maple Leafs game. He got kicked out because he was screaming at, berating, and swearing at a nice couple from out of town.

Courtesy of Tim Alamenciak via Wikipedia.

Why it’s cringeworthy: Why was he screaming at some random Toronto visitors? Did they root for the other team or something? Now, I’m not going to pretend I know that much about Toronto tourism, but it seems to me like that is not a good way to get anyone to visit your city.

12. Number 12 on my list is a nice followup on Number 13. After the news broke that Mayor Ford was kicked out of a hockey game, he had a great excuse: he claimed he was never even at the game. He originally told the Toronto Star: “This is unbelievable. I wasn’t even at the game, so someone’s trying to do a real hatchet job on me, let me tell you.” Eventually he had to admit that he was there, and just said that he had been irresponsible and wasn’t perfect.

Why it’s cringeworthy: Dude, we live in a world where everyone has a camera, or a camera phone, or something. It’s pretty hard to deny that you weren’t at a public event. It’s not even a good try.

11. At that same City Council Meeting where Mayor Ford compared his life to the Gulf War, he absolutely plowed into a woman while trying to walk.

Why it’s cringeworthy: Nothing says “let me keep running this city” and “I’m totally not on drugs” like being really, embarrassingly, uncoordinated.

10. In 2007, Mayor Ford said that if a bicyclist gets hit by a car it’s definitely the bicyclist’s fault. He also compared bike lanes to “swimming with the sharks.” My favorite part of this clip, though? Definitely the last sentence: “My heart bleeds for him when I hear someone gets killed, but it’s their own fault at the end of the day.”

Why it’s cringeworthy: Lack of understanding about the difference between sharks and humans driving cars aside, there is a huge logical fallacy to Mayor Ford’s argument. He says roads are dangerous and people shouldn’t be cycling. Then he goes on to say that therefore, the implementation of bike lanes, which would make this all safer, is a bad idea. Mayor Ford, that is not how logic works, but good try!

9. Mayor Ford’s use of the term “Orientals.” He stated:

“Those Oriental people work like dogs … they sleep beside their machines. The Oriental people, they’re slowly taking over … they’re hard, hard workers.”

Why it’s cringeworthy: Are you kidding me?

8. In 2011, a Canadian comedian showed up at his door pretending to be a journalist and asking him satirical questions. It’s also probably important to note that she was dressed like Xena, Warrior Princess. Weird comedy show aside, a rational response to this is not to call the police, as Mayor Ford did. In an expletive-filled 911 call, he claimed he was “attacked.”

Why it’s cringeworthy: Because it displays he has no sense of humor. Because it also displays a complete overreaction to a comedic stunt. And, because he apparently said to the dispatcher, “”Don’t you f***** know? I’m Rob f****** Ford, the mayor of this city.” Oof.

7. A former mayoral candidate, Sarah Thomson, ran into Mayor Ford at a political function about 9 months ago.  Ms. Thomson is a pretty woman, and no one seems to appreciate that more than Mayor Ford. He reportedly grabbed her butt and then told her she should have joined him in Florida a week earlier, because his wife wasn’t there. She later posted this picture to her Facebook:

Why it’s cringeworthy: At first I thought I was going to make a comment about not grabbing women’s butts in public, but I think Thomson covered it with her Facebook comment. So let’s all take a minute to appreciate the face he’s making in this picture instead.

6. Speaking of Rob Ford and women….he’s had a veritable plethora of problems with his wife and other female members of his family. On Christmas day in 2011, his mother-in-law had to call the cops because he was drunk, threatened to kidnap the couple’s children, and bring them to Florida.

Why it’s cringeworthy: A) Doesn’t he have better things to do? Like, I don’t know, run a city? and B) She made the call sometime between 4 AM and 5 AM. Who in the world is drunk and trying to go to Florida at 4 in the morning?

5. …To continue number 6, there have been multiple calls from Mayor Ford’s house alleging domestic abuse. On at least one occasion, both he and his wife may have been drunk or under the influence of drugs when the police showed up.

Why it’s cringeworthy: I seriously considered not including this one on the list, I really did. It’s about domestic abuse, and domestic abuse is not something that should ever be joked about it. But I did include it, because as funny and snarky as this list is supposed to be, there is a point. Mayor Ford is an idiot. He is unfit for office, and he should be embarrassed by the things he’s done. ALL of the things he’s done. And not shaming this man for his actions against his family and women…well that’s just unacceptable.

4. He used his mayoral letterhead to try to solicit donations for his high school football charity. In my opinion, that’s a little illegal, and a judge agreed.

Why it’s cringeworthy: Mayor Ford’s defense? He didn’t know he wasn’t supposed to use his position to solicit funds from his own charity. In a bizarre move, an appeals judge actually agreed with that argument, and he was ultimately not removed from office.

3. As a Councillor in 2006, Rob Ford rallied against an AIDS prevention program, stating about the disease, “It is very preventable. If you are not doing needles and you are not gay, you will not get AIDS probably, that’s the bottom line. These are the facts.”

Why it’s cringeworthy: When I first started making this list, I was calm and sitting on my couch. I’m still sitting on my couch, but now I’m not calm and I’m working my way through a very large pile of leftover Halloween candy to soothe my soul. It’s not working, because I keep running across statements like this. These are not the facts, Mayor Ford. They are not. And you should stop talking, forever.

2. That time that Mayor Ford tried to find a drug dealer to buy OxyContin on the street for a constituent. In 2010, a phone call happened where a man claimed his doctor would not prescribe him Oxy. Comments like this were made by Mayor Ford:

“I’ll try buddy, I’ll try,” the councillor replied. “I don’t know this shit, but I’ll f****** try to find it.” A few moments later Mr. Ford asked: “What does OxyContin go for on the street, so I have an idea?”

Why it’s cringeworthy: One hand, decent job trying to help a constituent. On the other, logical, hand, how could saying that ever seem like a good idea?

1. This.

Why it’s cringeworthy: I. Can’t. Stop. Laughing.

—

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 [West Annex News 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 Ford’s Fifteen: Fifteen Minutes of Fame, Fifteen Dumb-Ass Things appeared first on Law Street.