Welcome to a new workweek and 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:

USTA Accidentally Played Nazi-Era Anthem at Tennis Match

The United States Tennis Association had an incredibly embarrassing moment on Saturday when a banned verse of the German national anthem was accidentally played at the Fed Cup quarterfinal in Hawaii. The banned part of the anthem hails from Nazi Germany and was used as Nazi propaganda. It’s unclear how the mistake happened and Germany responded with outrage. The German team’s coach, Barbara Ritter, called the incident “inexcusable.” The USTA issued an official apology to Germany and said it won’t happen again. But for German player Andrea Petkovic, the damage was already done, as the incident happened right before her match. “I thought it was the epitome of ignorance, and I’ve never felt more disrespected in my whole life,” she said.

The USTA extends a sincere apology to the German Fed Cup team & fans 4 the outdated National Anthem. This mistake will not occur again. pic.twitter.com/4LyG3ACe5u

— USTA (@usta) February 11, 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: February 13, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Anyone who has been on social media during the past couple of weeks has seen the slow descent of Kanye West into what we can only call apparent madness. From his eloquent assertion that Bill Cosby is, in fact, innocent (despite over 50 public accusations of sexual assault):

BILL COSBY INNOCENT !!!!!!!!!!

— KANYE WEST (@kanyewest) February 9, 2016

To his admission that he is millions of dollars in debt, and the request that billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg bail him out:

I write this to you my brothers while still 53 million dollars in personal debt… Please pray we overcome… This is my true heart…

— KANYE WEST (@kanyewest) February 14, 2016

Mark Zuckerberg invest 1 billion dollars into Kanye West ideas

— KANYE WEST (@kanyewest) February 14, 2016

Then, of course, we have the lyrics in one of his songs on the newly released album “The Life of Pablo,” which are allegedly about Taylor Swift: “I feel like me and Taylor might still have sex / I made that bitch famous.”

It would be easy to brush all this off as a publicity stunt to draw attention to his album release, but this is not the first time Kanye has attempted to undermine Taylor Swift’s success. Let’s all flashback to the 2009 VMAs when he interrupted Taylor’s acceptance speech to tell the audience that Beyonce probably should have won.

T-Swift has reacted with humor and grace to most of Kanye’s gaffes, but even she had to take a stand against the misogynistic and disrespectful tone of this last attack. A representative of Swift said she was unaware of the lyric before the song was released, and did not by any means approve it.

While friends and supporters of Swift took to social media with their criticisms of Kanye’s misogyny, Swift used her Album of the Year Grammy win as a platform to call out Kanye, and on a broader scale, anyone who has attempted to minimize female success.

As the first woman to win Album of the Year at the Grammys twice, I want to say to all the young women out there, there will be people along the way who will try to undercut your success, or take credit for your accomplishments or your fame. But if you just focus on the work … you will look around and you will know that it was you and the people who love you that put you there. That will be the greatest moment.

This is not an unusual statement for the feminist artist, who has promoted self-acceptance and gender equality more than once on award ceremony stages. This particular feminist speech just has the bonus of shutting down the Cosby-supporting Kanye.

Keep being a fabulous feminist, Taylor.

Watch the moment below:

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 Taylor Swift Takes Feminist Stance Against Kanye West appeared first on Law Street.

The National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, known best for hosting the Grammys, is getting political this year, and not in a “Formation” kind of way. The Academy has created a Political Action Committee intended to support and protect recording artists by attempting to influence Congress on important bills.

Currently, the Academy’s PAC, called ‘the Grammy Fund for Music Creators’ is taking aim at getting the Fair Play Fair Pay Act passed. Like most bills, the name sounds appealing, but the drafting and passing of this bill has become quite contentious. The core of the bill would require radio stations to pay additional fees in order to play songs, and other parts of the bill would concern payments from online streaming.

When you buy a song on iTunes, or stream a song on Spotify, the money spent is split between Apple or Spotify, and then then between the artists, producers, and songwriters, according to their agreement. When music is used in another work of art, such as in a film or TV show, or sampled in another song, royalties are similarly distributed. There’s one major exception to this trend: when music is played on the radio, the stations pay royalties to the songwriters, and no one else.

The reasoning behind this is that airtime on radio stations is considered “promotional,” and is argued to drive sales of music and build popularity of artists. Even in our streaming-saturated music scene, most Americans still go the the radio for new music. Of course, the recording artists see it differently. They claim that with record sales dropping year after year, radio is an increasingly weak promotional force, and shouldn’t be exempted any more than Rdio, Spotify, Pandora, or Apple Music. Some criticize this new bill as a ‘cash grab,’ calling to mind Taylor Swift’s ongoing boycott of Spotify.

Proponents of local radio worry that these potential regulations would be stifling to small radio stations. The Free Radio Alliance explains why on its webpage:

The multinational record labels want a bigger slice of the pie and they want Washington to give it to them. The record labels have made several attempts to impose a performance tax, or fee, on free and local radio stations through Congressional legislation in the past and now they are back at it. A performance fee would require radio stations to pay the record labels yet another fee to air music free, over-the-air to listeners. Congress has continually rejected the notion that imposing a new fee is appropriate, based on the tremendous promotion value radio stations provide to labels and performers.

The Academy claims that the proceeds will benefit the artists, adding a specific claim in the statement by one of the Grammy Fund’s officers, Harvey Mason Jr.:

We represent everybody, not just superstar artists. So we are careful in how we disseminate our message, and when we go to D.C. or have events, it is with a variety of people from the bottom to the top.

While the effort to give money to the artists and creators is noble, it may be difficult to achieve this goal, given that it would need to overcome the precedent of radio stations being able to inexpensively play music. It’s worth learning more about the process to evaluate whether you support the bill. I’d recommend checking out Rolling Stone’s in-depth analysis of how royalties are divided in various music listening formats. And if you tune in to this year’s Grammy Awards, you’ll likely notice a more nostalgic tone, with David Bowie and Lemmy tributes planned. But you should know that behind the scenes, the Academy is taking a political stand with far-reaching implications.

Editor’s Note: This post was updated on 2/17/2016 for clarity. 

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Grammys Get Political Behind The Scenes appeared first on Law Street.

Now that awards season is officially in full swing, it means that red carpet season is upon us as well. And as we watch the red carpet coverage there seems to be only one question that reporters are interested in asking female attendees: Who are you wearing?

This year, The Representation Project launched a campaign promoting the hashtag #AskHerMore. The idea is for red carpet reporters to ask female actors and entertainers about anything other than their appearance.

The whole reason I write here on Law Street is because I am in fact a woman who is interested in business, politics, and law (and yes I do identify as the “F-word”). But I’m a little different from most of the other Law Street ladies (and men), because I work in the fashion industry as well. While many might argue that law and fashion are like apples and oranges, my career is focused around fighting against that notion. That said, can #AskHerMore and the fashion industry exist in solidarity? Absolutely, but allow me explain why.

The main reason most attend a red carpet event is that their work is nominated or because they are being celebrated in some shape or form that evening. While reporters may want to ask first-time nominees what it feels like to be recognized, they’re not going to ask someone like Meryl Streep the same questions for the umpteenth time. Asking what they’re wearing can serve as a sort of ice-breaker for any nominee. I’m not so sure, however, that “What are you wearing?” should be the only question women or men on the red carpet are asked.

Also, the fashion and entertainment industries are both based on artistic forms of expression. You can’t really have one without the other (Ahem, best costume design award?). But you also can’t have art without politics either. In fact, the reason behind a given celebrity wearing a certain designer is strictly business. These celebs have contracts with fashion houses that require them to wear designs that are meticulously picked out and designed for a given public appearance. In turn, these designers get calls from clients the second the celeb reveals to the reporter what he or she is wearing.

That’s not to say, however, that even celebrities aren’t fed up with being asked about their appearance. Last month during the Golden Globes, several celebrities chose to pass on partaking in E! News’s “mani-cam.”

While I don’t think there’s anything wrong with reporters asking celebs what they’re wearing, the idea behind #askhermore is that it shouldn’t be the only thing they’re asking. But what else are they supposed to ask in the few seconds that they have to interview them? I’m not sure. If it were up to me, I would just get rid of E! News’ red carpet coverage altogether. It all gets covered online anyway. That way we can focus on the actual show and honoring these women for their work, while still preserving the Old Hollywood tradition or seeing celebs all dolled up in their best evening wear.

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 #AskHerMore But What? Feminism, Fashion, and Awards Season appeared first on Law Street.

So, how many of you caught the Grammy Awards this weekend?

If you missed it, you should totally check out the recap post I wrote yesterday. It was a pretty epic night, complete with a weird Taylor Swift head banging incident and Daft Punk robot love.

But! The highlight of this year’s Grammys was definitely, without a doubt, Beyoncé and Jay Z’s “Drunk in Love” duet. It was so sexy. How sexy?

Dying over here.

Ridiculous amounts of sexy.

This performance isn’t notable just because all of us felt a universal need to go take a cold shower after watching it. As Alyssa Rosenberg points out on Think Progress, it’s also got a political edge to it.

Folks, Mr. and Mrs. Carter are proving that marriage can be awesome.

Now, I’ve written before about how the institution of marriage can be super problematic. It’s historically rooted in the buying and selling of women — complete with name changes to indicate the changing hands of property owners — and while it’s a different animal now here in the U.S., it’s still a source of major oppression. Spousal abuse and domestic violence still run rampant, women are still disproportionately responsible for the second or third shift of child rearing and housekeeping, and of course, there’s that nasty beast called monogamy. It’s got a shit reputation for making people feel trapped and unfulfilled — assuming they’re even sticking to it.

So, yeah. Marriage can be a bum deal. Which is why divorce rates are depressingly high, marriage rates are tellingly low, and movies like Runaway Bride are so goddamn relatable.

And that’s a problem for the political Right. They’d like to sell marriage all day — the heterosexual, monogamous kind, at least. For the conservatives, marriage is the ideal. The goal we’re all working toward. The bitter end.

But wait — isn’t that the Left’s view as well? Honestly, pretty much. One night stands and extended bachelorhood might be glorified on TV (Barney Stinson, anyone?), but really, even How I Met Your Mother’s ultimate single guy tied the knot eventually. Politically, the Left is all about marriage as well.

I mean, really, who are we kidding? The movement for gay rights has been a movement for gay marriage rights. Even the queers, who are supposed to be little unicorns of unconventional-relationship-forming light, are obsessed with marriage these days. It’s just reality.

So, when Jay Z and Beyoncé — two ridiculously hot, successful people who just happen to be married to one another — take the stage at the Grammys and give the single sexiest performance ever in the history of the world, we all have to sit up and pay attention.

Because it’s like a collective light bulb just went off. Aha! This is what marriage can look like.

Over at Think Progress, Alyssa argued that the Carters’ performance could be a major asset for the Right, if mobilized correctly. Conservatives could sell marriage licenses faster than hotcakes if they hired Bey and Jay to be their spokesmodels.

But I’d like to take it one step further. Sure, the Carters could sell a traditional marriage ideal for the Right — except, they don’t fit into it themselves. The conservative marriage model is dreary and Puritanical. It takes a Calvinist attitude to relationships — it’s hard work, and not much play. It’s a commitment between partners and helpmates, not so much a joyful companionship.

And I’m sorry, but who really wants in on that? Not Beyoncé and Jay Z. Definitely not.

So, instead of serving as a sales pitch for the political Right, I think the Carters are offering a radical redefinition of marriage.

Here are two people who have actual fun together. Who respect each other. Who actively resist racist and sexist norms built into the marriage model. (Did you know that they both changed their names upon legalizing? Jay Z’s an awesome feminist husband and I love him.) These are two separate and independent people, and they’ve come together not because they need each other, but because they want one another.

This is a marriage that doesn’t look like work. It looks like fun.

So, with that, here’s the full video of Beyoncé and Jay Z totally owning the Grammys.

Now that’s a marriage I wouldn’t mind being in.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) 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.

Featured image courtesy of [idrewuk via Flickr]

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 Beyoncé and Jay Z Did Some Feminist Marriage Queering at the Grammys appeared first on Law Street.