Emma Donoghue‘s novel “Room,” and subsequent movie of the same name, is allegedly inspired by real-life criminal Josef Fritzl, who imprisoned and raped his daughter, Elisabeth Fritzl, for twenty-four years. The novel and movie feature Ma and her son Jack as prisoners of Old Nick–Ma’s kidnapper and rapist. When Jack turns five, Ma executes a successful escape plan.

A 2010 article written by Sarah Crown, and published on The Guardian’s website, quotes Donoghue as saying her book was not based on the Fritzl case but, rather, “triggered” by it. Similarly to Ma, Elisabeth Fritzl was imprisoned, raped, and impregnated. The major differences include:

• Fritzl’s captor and rapist was her father.
• Fritzl was imprisoned for 24 years.
• Fritzl’s prison was in her home’s cellar–Ma’s prison was in a garden shed.
• Fritzl had multiple children in her prison while Ma raised one child.

People accused Donoghue of taking advantage of the shocking case for self-gain in the form of a book deal. Donoghue states she did not intend this and views the book, partly, as a reflection on the complexities of parenthood.

Since the trial, Elisabeth Fritzl and her family withdrew from society, adopted new identities, and began “anonymous” lives. So, it’s hard to imagine she is glad that her story has regained notoriety with the film’s creation and award nominations.

But when “fiction” lives so close to reality, it’s not strange to wonder: did the film and the book need to purchase Elisabeth Fritzl’s life story rights? Seemingly not, as most courts recognize that there is a difference between retelling a true story and being inspired by one to create a work of fiction. There are significant differences between Donoghue’s stories and the real crimes, therefore it is not viewed as a true depiction of the Fritzl case.

While the use of Elisabeth Fritzl’s trauma as literary and cinematic inspiration may feel distasteful to some, Donoghue’s works do not use the crime’s details for shock factor, but rather as a way to explore how strength and family function. In fact, the most gripping part of Donoghue’s screenplay is the intelligence and resilience of major, and minor, female characters. For example, how a woman could endure a constant trauma for seven years and raise a son, without breaking down mentally is unimaginable even when it is performed in front of you. What motivated Ma to maintain a daily routine for Jack? Perhaps the love and sense of responsibility she had for her son surpassed the atrocities she endured. Or perhaps it was the hope she would one day see her mother and father again and return to her childhood home, which she describes to Jack in an attempt to explain the outside world to him.

Another extraordinary woman appears in the female police officer who responds to the 911 call when Jack escapes. While she only emerges in one scene, her ability is striking. She patiently questions Jack in an attempt to learn his story. While gentle in tone and manner with Jack, she does not back off from her questions when he refuses to speak. Instead she pushes him to give her all the information he can. The male officer, her partner, only gets in her way, telling her she won’t get anything out of the boy and to give him time. But she ignores the other officer and from Jack’s disjointed tale of escape is able to deduce the location of Jack’s prison and rescue Ma quickly. Her part may have been meant to move the plot along rather than to applaud women who excel at their jobs, but, still, her heroism is lasting.

Despite privacy concerns, the story of “Room” remains important. It’s important that two such heroic, female characters exist as recognitions of real, strong women and as role models for every person. And finally, it’s important that this story features women doing the saving rather than being saved.

Ruby Hutson-Ellenberg

Ruby Hutson-Ellenberg is a 2016 Hunter College graduate, where she majored in English with a concentration in Creative Writing. As a native New Yorker, Ruby loves going to the theater and writing plays, which have been particularly well received by her parents. Contact Ruby at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post The Real Woman in the “Room” appeared first on Law Street.

You may have been following along with fellow Law Streeter Marisa Mostek’s Dumbest Laws series, as she goes state by state revealing the most random and outdated laws throughout the country. But this week, I want to tell you about a brand new dumb law that was proposed in Oklahoma this week, banning people from wearing hoodies. Anyone wearing a hood for the purposes of “hiding one’s identity” could be fined $500.

The Sooner State actually once held a similar law intending to stop the Ku Klux Klan back in the 1920s. Though this time I think the law may have more racist motives. With all the recent incidents of police brutality and subsequent protests, I can’t help but remember Trayvon Martin, who was killed by a police officer in 2012 while wearing a hoodie.

Barring dress codes for certain buildings and occasions, our First Amendment rights include freedom of expression and that includes one’s manner of dress. I don’t know about you, but I certainly wouldn’t want to be hit with a $500 fine just for wearing a jacket with a hood on a rainy or snowy day.

Senator Don Barrington insists that the reason behind such a law is to prevent people from getting away with crimes while concealing their identities. The law would also exempt those wearing a hood for religious, safety, or medical purposes as well as for Halloween costumes. So basically, the only day you can really get away with a crime is on Halloween. But how would law enforcement officers know if a person is wearing a hood for religious or medical reasons? Would they have to carry around special ID? Don’t police have anything better to do than to go around interrogating every single person wearing a hood in the state of Oklahoma?

So Oklahoma, get ready to say goodbye to one of your favorite closet staples. (Whether you’re allowed to wear hooded jackets as long as the hood is off of your head, I’m not sure.) If you don’t like being out in the cold/rain/snow with your head unprotected, I guess you could always wear a hat?

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dumb Laws Fashion Edition: Hide Your Hoodies appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

I try not to spend a whole lot of time paying attention to the local news in Houston because it’s usually about someone getting killed or the meteorologist getting the weather wrong yet again. But I noticed a tweet from my local outlet about Houston’s mayor Annise Parker doing something crazy. That something crazy is subpoenaing pastors over their sermons.

I will be 100 percent honest and let you know that I am not fond of Mayor Parker. She drives me insane. Not because she is a Democrat or a lesbian but because her ideals of how to run this city are just bananas! (Sidenote: I do really hate how every news outlet constantly identifies Mayor Parker as the “first openly lesbian mayor of a major city.” I mean this with all do respect, but who gives a crap at this point!? She’s been mayor of Houston for four years — time to let that go. This is why we can never be seen as more than our gender and sexuality. Stop identifying people by these two labels — she is MAYOR ANNISE PARKER! What does her sexual preference have to do with running this city? Absolutely nothing! Off my soap box.)

The city’s Equal Rights Ordinance was voted on back in May and is now being challenged for various reasons. The ordinance included a “bathroom” clause that was eventually dropped, which regulated which bathrooms a transgender person could use. Over the summer, opponents of the ordinance delivered 50,000 signatures for repeal— nearly triple the minimum necessary number of 17,269. In this case, good ol’ Mayor Parker — champion of the ordinance — has decided to take away the First Amendment rights of pastors in Houston by subpoenaing the sermons and other communications of pastors who opposed the ordinance and collected signatures in church.

The subpoenas sought “all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO (Houston Equal Rights Ordinance), the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession,” according to the Houston Chronicle.

Churches and pastors are specifically protected in their speech and religious practice under the First Amendment. So why does Mayor Parker and her cronies think it was okay to subpoena their sermons? Let’s just start to chip away at the constitution a little bit at a time until we have no more rights. Who needs rights or to be protected by the law anyway?

I certainly do love how Mayor Parker and City Attorney Dave Feldman have started to back track on everything since the subpoenas were issued on Monday; they are now claiming that they have realized that the subpoenas were too broad. Too broad? You basically want to see everything that is being said about you and stripping away the rights of fellow Houstonians. It’s like the popular girl in high school finding out someone doesn’t agree with her and then demanding to find out everything that is being said behind her back. Grow up! Not even two days after the subpoenas were issued Mr. Feldman received criticism from Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott stating that the subpoenas needed to be withdrawn immediately. Hmmm. City attorney versus Attorney General of the State of Texas. Who do you think has more clout?

Mayor Parker needs to set aside her own personal agenda and do what’s right for the whole city and maybe take into account the reason why she is in the position she is in. Wouldn’t it make sense to know about the laws and the Constitution before trying to get your way? You just made yourself look like a fool, Annise.

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 Is Houston Mayor Annise Parker Violating First Amendment Rights? appeared first on Law Street.

Writing about technology and its many uses has never been more important to me than today.  The civil disobedience, sadness, and anger expressed in Ferguson, Missouri by its residents and sympathizers would most likely have gone unnoticed by the majority of the nation if it weren’t for social media outlets like Youtube, Twitter, Vine, and Facebook.  To attribute the proper value to these technologies, we must first identify the root cause of the demonstrations which have led to a militarized police force and the enforcement of pseudo-martial law.  This post in no way condones, encourages, or repudiates any of the methods used by law enforcement or protesters, nor does it seek to pass judgment on the incomplete police investigation concerning the death of Michael Brown.  Instead, this post will point out what has happened, and highlight the use of technology to keep the public informed when formal media outlets were unable to.

On August 9th, a recent high school graduate and prospective college student by the name of Michael Brown was killed by a member of the Ferguson Police Department.  There is much speculation surrounding the death, including the order of events leading to it.  Because an official investigation is ongoing, the only thing we know for certain is that Michael Brown, although unarmed, was shot and killed by a Ferguson Police officer.  The people of Ferguson, left heartbroken and mourning, decided to commemorate Michael’s death with a candlelight vigil in the same neighborhood where Mr. Brown was killed.  However, the Ferguson police made an appearance at the vigil, bringing with them police dogs and brandishing high powered assault weapons. In response, the crowds’ emotions turned from grief, to outrage, and escalated to protest as documented by Vine and Youtube uploads as well as Tweets and Facebook posts.

In the midst of the protests, a handful of opportunists taking advantage of high emotions and tension destroyed the property of privately owned businesses by looting, vandalizing, and setting said businesses on fire.  This small group of criminals turned a peaceful protest into a riot, causing the St. Louis County Police Department to take over law enforcement in the area by using a strategy of militarized policing.  Characterizing the entire group of protesters as looters and rioters led to the denigration of the entire protest. This allowed the looters to become scapegoats, which subsequently justified militarized police aggression.  The denigration of a group of people and scapegoating resulting in justified aggression are all characteristic of systemic oppression.

Whether knowingly or unknowingly, St. Louis County PD increased tension when it informed Ferguson residents that neither the autopsy nor the identity of the officer involved in the killing of Michael Brown, would be released to the public.  As protests continued, the peaceful crowds were met with heavily armored trucks and tanks, high powered assault rifles, snipers perched ready and waiting, tear gas, and rubber bullets. The protesters were told by police standing in front of tanks and using loudspeakers, that their right to peacefully assemble was not being denied.  Although a curfew was not set, police made it clear that they wanted protesters off of the streets by nightfall and used tear gas and rubber bullets to push non-compliant protesters back. In some cases, as documented by Vine videos, police shot tear gas canisters into residential areas, including the fenced in backyard of a protester that refused to go inside his home, although he was protesting on his own property.

Police detained journalists and shot tear gas at a news crew they saw filming them.  After the news crew ran away from their van and equipment to escape the tear gas, police were photographed removing their cameras and pointing them toward the ground so they could no longer record police activity.  This is where the pseudo-martial law comes into play. To be clear, martial law was at no time officially declared, but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it’s a duck. Disallowing the press to report activity; intimidating protesters with visuals of military-like riot gear; requiring protesters that are peacefully assembling to return to their homes by nightfall; detaining reporters without cause; and the use of militarized police enforcement are all characteristics of martial law.

The use of militarized law enforcement has been noted and called into question by government officials on both sides of the political spectrum.  Outrage by people following the activity in Ferguson on social media forums was voiced both nationally and internationally.  Photos, Vine and Youtube videos, as well as tweets and Facebook posts were the source of the outrage that led to protests in major cities throughout the country and internationally in cities like London.  There was even advice given in the form of Youtube videos to protesters in Ferguson by Palestinians on how to stay protected from tear gas.  As a result of public backlash against militarized policing, the Governor of Missouri, Mr. Jay Nixon, announced that Missouri Highway Patrol would take over law enforcement in Ferguson, and try to set a different tone.

The tone set by Missouri Highway Patrol was one of peace and understanding. Captain Ronald Johnson described his personal connection to not only Ferguson but to the killing of Michael Brown. The change in police technique was noted by formal media outlets as well as social media postings which reported MHP officers walking with protesters instead of standing against them. These officers were not dressed in riot gear nor did they use methods such as tear gas or rubber bullets in their interactions with Ferguson protesters.  In addition, the Ferguson Police Chief has announced they will comply with one of the requests of the protesters, to release the identity of the police officer who shot Michael Brown. That identity was released earlier today.

Not only did social media keep the public informed of minute by minute occurrences in Ferguson, but social media users also pointed out what they believed to be disparities in formal media coverage with hashtags on Twitter and Instagram like #IfIWasGunnedDown.  This particular hashtag was used to show ways in which news coverage portrays black victims by displaying unflattering images as opposed to more positive looking images to influence character assassination of the victims.  Other hashtags like #Ferguson were used to allow social media users to quickly find information related to the Ferguson protests.  While social media is an amazing platform that can be used to inform the public, it also showed differing public opinions.  Some users voiced support for the use of military-like force against protesters and used the incident of looting as evidence for its need.  Others voiced disapproval that such force was being used and accused militarized police enforcement of inciting more anger among peaceful protesters.

It’s unclear what will happen in Ferguson but it should be appreciated that people were able to inform the public, voice their opinions, and urge a public discussion on topics such as race relations, militarized policing, civil liberties, police brutality, and what people consider to be justice or injustice.  Social media opened up the problems of a town with a population of 21,000 to the world, causing people to come together in solidarity and peaceful protest.  If it weren’t for the openness of the Internet here in the US, we may have never known what was happening in Ferguson.  Whether you agree or disagree with what is going on in Ferguson, we can all take heart in knowing we were all able to use social media and technology to be informed and come to our own conclusions.

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #Ferguson: How Social Media Kept America Informed appeared first on Law Street.