A new Florida law allows residents to challenge any school textbook that they find inappropriate.

The legislation, which went into effect on July 1, is known as the Instructional Materials Bill. It permits any resident, regardless of whether or not they have a child in school, to challenge what Florida students are learning via an independent hearing. If the hearing officer deems the complaint justified, they can order the school to ban the book. However, school districts will still have the final say.

The Florida Citizens’ Alliance, a conservative group, pushed for the law after examining more than 60 textbooks in 2015. The group’s founder, Keith Flaugh, found more than 80 instances in one government textbook that he believes gives false information.

“We found [the textbooks] to be full of political indoctrination, religious indoctrination, revisionist history and distorting our founding values and principles, even a significant quantity of pornography,” he told NPR.

He goes on to explain the pornography is in literature within the school library or on summer reading lists.

While the bill can apply to any piece of required reading, the FCA’s main concern is with science textbooks. The group does not believe the schools should teach evolution or climate change as facts. One unnamed member claimed that the “vast majority of Americans believe that the world and the beings living on it were created by God as revealed in the Bible,” so the textbooks should only present evolution as a theory.

Similarly, an affidavit from a teacher complains that her school is teaching climate change as “reality.”

Other issues the FCA has with the books include attitudes toward Islam and anti-American portrayals of history.

In response to the bill, the Florida Citizens for Science Group posted a statement on its blog:

We believe that should this bill become law with the governor’s signature, people who crusade against basic, established science concepts such as evolution and climate change will have the green light to bog down the textbook selection process on the local level and bully school boards into compromises that will negatively impact science education.

Glenn Branch, deputy director of the National Center for Science Education, is also concerned. “It’s just the candor with which the backers of the bill have been saying, ‘Yeah, we’re going to go after evolution, we’re going to go after climate change,'” he said.

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Florida Law Fights Against “Political Indoctrination” in School Textbooks appeared first on Law Street.

One of America’s most enduring mysteries is what happened to Amelia Earhart after she attempted to become the first female pilot to fly around the world in 1937. Earhart, and her navigator Fred Noonan, seemingly vanished over the Pacific Ocean, and concrete evidence of a crash was never discovered.

But now, researchers may have a new theory. A previously classified photo was discovered at the National Archives which appears to show a short-haired woman sitting on a dock looking at a boat towing a plane that is 38 feet long– the same length as Earhart’s plane. With her back turned to the camera, the woman’s identity is unclear, but her short hair and height match Earhart, according to the Washington Post.

Additionally, there is a man in the picture whose nose and hair match up perfectly with Noonan, in the opinion of a facial recognition expert. Their location would make sense since the small islands could have been along the path that Earhart took before disappearing over the Pacific. The tweet below identifies the two subjects:

Holy crap, there may be new evidence that Amelia Earhart didn’t die in that plane crash https://t.co/RF3xT9jR1Z pic.twitter.com/2JFg00Ot9E

— BuzzFeed (@BuzzFeed) July 5, 2017

The photo was discovered by former U.S. Treasury agent Les Kinney. It will be featured as part of an upcoming History Channel documentary titled “Amelia Earhart: The Lost Evidence.”  In order to ensure the authenticity of the photograph, it was examined by two independent photo experts who confirmed it was not distorted, according to the Washington Post.

At first, Shawn Henry, a former FBI assistant executive director who is now helping privately investigate the Earhart disappearance, was skeptical of the photo. But once he saw the woman wearing what appear to be Earhart’s trademark pants, his opinion changed.

“I’m looking at her sitting on the dock and thinking, ‘This is her,’” he said.

One of the theories is that Earhart and Noonan were held in Japanese custody after crashing in Japanese territory. Kinney believes that this photo is as close to a smoking gun as has ever been discovered in this decades-long investigation.

“We believe that the Koshu took her to Saipan [in the Mariana Islands], and that she died there under the custody of the Japanese,” said Gary Tarpinian, the executive producer of the special.

After finding the photo–the location pictured is Jaliut Harbor on Jaluit Island, Henry traveled to the Marshall Islands to speak with those who claim that Earhart did in fact visit there. Henry spoke with the son of one man who claimed to have seen Earhart in Mili Atoll in 1937. He also met the last living person who claims to have seen the duo after their arrival, according to the Washington Post. While these stories are inconclusive when considered alone, Henry believes that they corroborate the picture and that all combined we have “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Japanese authorities did tell NBC News they have no record of Earhart ever being in their custody. However, many documents were lost after the islands switched from German to Japanese ownership, according to BBC.

Japanese explorers first arrived at the islands in the 19th century, but the first permanent settlements were created in the 1920s. The person who took this picture is believed to have been a American spy who was keeping tabs on Japanese military activity in the Pacific, according to NBC News. Japanese power over the region ended after the nation’s surrender in World War II. So, there is the possibility that Imperial Japan did keep Earhart and Noonan in its custody up until that point.

The mystery may never be solved, but this photograph is essentially the only concrete evidence ever discovered, and it has reignited the mystery.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Was Amelia Earhart Captured by Japan? appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump recently issued a revised travel ban temporarily preventing people from six countries and all refugees from entering the United States. The original ban was immediately met with condemnation, protest, and legal action, leading the administration to change course. The revised version amounts to a significant scaling back relative to the original, but many of the longer term consequences remain the same. While this is the most recent and perhaps one of the most chaotic efforts to control who comes into the United States, it is far from the first. The history of U.S. immigration policy is littered with restrictions, quotas, and preferences for certain groups. Read on further to find out how President Trump’s executive action fits in the long lexicon of American immigration policy.

History of Immigration

The United States is and has been a land of immigrants long before it was even a country. European migration began in the 16th century, first with the French and Spanish then later with the English, who founded their first permanent colony in Jamestown in 1607. Many of the earliest European settlers traveled either to avoid religious persecution in their native land or to seek better opportunities. There was also a dark side to this original mass migration. Many white Europeans arrived as indentured servants and even more black slaves were forcibly removed from Africa and brought to the new world.

The second batch of migrants, which came to the United States in the 19th century, was also predominantly from Western Europe. Along with English settlers, came large numbers of Irish and German migrants. Approximately 4.5 million Irish made their way to the United States between 1820 and 1930, settling mostly along the coast. Meanwhile, roughly five million Germans arrived during the 19th century and often moved into the interior of the country. These groups were also joined by a large number of Chinese workers who came to the United States in search of gold. The Chinese immigrants tended to settle in the western portions of the United States.

At the end of the 19th century and into the early 20th century, the demographics of immigration shifted again. During this period there was a large rise in immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe. This was most clearly characterized by the nearly four million Italians who entered the United States. Following this wave, however, immigration slowed dramatically due to international events such as World War I and II, as well as the Great Depression. After World War II, refugees from Europe and the Soviet Union flocked to the U.S., along with those from Cuba following Castro’s rise. The video below from Business Insider provides a good illustration of where immigrants came from and when they arrived in the United States:

According to numbers from Pew Research Center, the highest percentage of foreign-born people living in the United States occurred back in 1890 when nearly 15 percent of the population was foreign-born. The lowest point occurred back in 1970 when just 5 percent of the population was born outside the United States. Recent data suggests we will likely reach a new high very soon. In 2015, about 14 percent of the population was foreign-born, a percentage that is projected to increase to nearly 18 percent by 2065.

The History of Immigration Restrictions

For almost as long as people have been migrating to the United States, policymakers have enacted a variety of different pieces of legislation to restrict immigration in general and for specific groups of people. First was the Naturalization Act of 1790, which made only free white people of good moral character who have lived in the U.S. for at least two years eligible for naturalization. This requirement was later changed to 14 years of residency and eventually back down to five years, due to political reasons. Another restriction was put in place in 1819 when Congress started requiring ship captains to provide a list of any foreign-born people onboard intending to immigrate.

Immigration restrictions did not really intensify until after 1850, which was the first time the U.S. Census asked what country people came from. This was followed by a dramatic increase in migration restrictions, particularly those targeting people from Asia. In 1862 the “Anti-Coolie” Act was passed with the aim of preventing Chinese immigration to California and forced California businesses that hired Chinese workers to pay an additional tax. There was also the Naturalization Act of 1870, which made free white people and “persons of African descent” and “nativity” eligible for naturalization but excluded Asians. Perhaps the most infamous example was the Chinese Exclusion Act passed in 1882, which barred all Chinese immigration for 10 years. This act was extended in 1892 by the Geary Act for 10 more years and then again indefinitely in 1902.

These restrictive measures extended into the 20th century as well, starting with the 1907 gentlemen’s agreement with Japan, where Japan agreed to discourage Japanese migration to the U.S. in exchange for more protections for Japanese people already in the U.S. There were additional restrictions at the state level as well, including in 1913 when California passed the Alien Land Law preventing Chinese and Japanese nationals from owning land. In 1917 Congress went a step further, banning immigration from many Asian countries with notable exceptions being Japan and the Philippines.

Another major immigration policy shift occurred in 1921 when the first of the Quota Acts was enacted. The law placed immigration quotas on countries to restrict the number of people from a certain country to three percent of the number that lived in the United States after the 1910 census. A similar act was passed in 1924 limiting the number of migrants from Eastern and Southern Europe to two percent of the 1890 levels. The adoption of the National Origins Formula delivered the final blow, completely banning immigration from Asia, while still allowing immigration from the Western Hemisphere.

It did not end with Asian immigrants either, as the Oriental Exclusion Act prohibited most immigration from Asia but also included foreign-born wives and the children of American citizens of Chinese ancestry. The Expatriation Act went even further, stating that an American woman who marries a foreign national loses her citizenship; this was partially repealed in 1922 but still held for women marrying Asian citizens. Even the Supreme Court entered the debate over race and citizenship in the case United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind. The court ruled that a caucasian man from India did not meet the definition of white person used in established immigration law, and therefore could not become a citizen.

In addition to people from Asia, other groups were also barred over the years for reasons that were not explicitly related to race or ethnicity. The Immigration Act of 1882, for example, put a $0.50 charge on people immigrating and forbid lunatics and those likely to become dependent on the state. The Alien Contract Labor Law was passed in 1885 to prohibit bringing foreign contract laborers to the country, except for certain industries. In 1891 Congress made polygamists, people with diseases, and those convicted of specific misdemeanors also ineligible for immigration. Political groups were also targeted–following the assassination of President William McKinley, Congress passed the Anarchist Exclusion Act in 1901 barring anarchists and political extremists.

Along with all these outright restrictions were a host of other measures to simply make the immigration process harder–like literacy tests on citizenship applications and additional agencies set up to oversee immigration–that, while not explicitly forbidding it, significantly hindered immigration for many groups. It was not until 1965 when Congress passed the Immigration and Nationality Act that many of the quotas and restrictions were finally eliminated.

The video below gives an overview of the immigration practices of the United States:

Immigrants in the U.S. Today

Despite the complicated history of immigration policy, the number of foreign-born people in the United States has increased dramatically since 1965. As of 2015, there were about 43.3 million foreign-born people living in the United States, which is approximately 13.5 percent of the total population. Of that amount, about 20 million are naturalized citizens, with the rest being permanent residents, people with temporary status, and people who entered the country illegally. The Pew Research Center estimates that in 2014 there was a total of 11.1 million foreign-born people in the United States who entered the country illegally.

The immigrant population rose from 9.6 million in 1970 to the 43.3 million here today. Over that time, the primary source of immigrants has shifted from Europe to Latin America and Asia. Specifically, in 2015 the top five countries of origin for new immigrants were: India, China, Mexico, the Philippines, and Canada. The 2015 numbers generally reflect the leading countries of origin for the total foreign-born population as well, which are led by Mexico, India, China, and the Philippines.

The immigrant population in the United States skews slightly female, at a little more than 50 percent. It is also older than the general U.S. population with a median age of 43.5 years. Demographically, nearly half of immigrants identify themselves as white, a little more than a quarter identify as Asian, and about 9 percent identify themselves as black. Ethnically, Hispanics and latinos are the largest group of immigrants, representing about 45 percent. In terms of education, the percentage of immigrants with at least a bachelor’s degree is almost the same as the national average, at about 30 percent. And geographically, states that border Mexico or have large population centers tend to have the most immigrants, with California leading the way followed by New York, Texas, Florida, and New Jersey.

Immigration and the Economy

From 2009 to 2011, the amount of money earned by immigrants was nearly 15 percent percent of all U.S. wages, although immigrants make up 13 percent of the overall population. Immigrants are more likely to be prime working age and work in higher proportions relative to their share of the population. Immigrants also own nearly one-fifth of all small businesses. Finally, nearly half of all immigrants work in white collar jobs and are often overrepresented in some middle-class occupations such as nursing.

While immigrants are working in disproportionately high numbers, they also generally do not harm the work opportunities for most native-born Americans either. While immigration’s effects on domestic workers is a hotly debated subject, many economists agree that it provides an overall economic benefit, although it could also have significant economic consequences for certain groups. In the long-run, immigrants can actually be beneficial to the American job market overall. Moreover, when immigrants drive wages down, it is often because they lack the protections that American citizens have and thus are susceptible to exploitation.

Immigrants, particularly undocumented workers, often pay into programs such as Social Security, which they cannot draw from, and are actually a net positive for the national budget. A review from the Social Security Administration found that undocumented workers paid as much as $13 billion into Social Security in 2010–which came in the form of payroll taxes from immigrants using fraudulent identification–but only received about $1 billion in benefits.

Aside from economic impacts, immigrants also affect American society in other positive ways. These include introducing new or different foods and cooking styles, presenting alternative forms of spirituality, and even incorporating non-traditional medical treatments.

Conclusion

The words inscribed at the foot of the Statue of Liberty in New York read, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore.” These inspiring words, originally written by the poet Emma Lazarus, perfectly encapsulate the ideals that many speak of when they refer to the United States as a nation of immigrants. However, for much of the nation’s history, the people and practices of this country have failed to live up to that ideal.

Donald Trump’s ban, while definitely not the first, is the latest in a long line of efforts to restrict immigration from certain areas and for certain groups of people. Although these restrictions are often passed under the guise of being in the best interest of America or its citizens, they can have the opposite effect. This is because immigrants are often willing to do many of the jobs native born citizens will not, at lower wages. Despite the United States’ complicated history, immigrants have continuously added to and enriched American culture.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Before the Ban: The History of U.S. Immigration Policy appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, December 29, President Barack Obama placed sanctions on Russia for its alleged hacking of several American institutions. While the sanctions themselves are not unprecedented–the U.S. had sanctioned Russia two years earlier–they point to another unfortunate episode in an increasingly contentious relationship between the two nations. This relationship has eroded as these former adversaries have clashed over Crimea, the nation of Georgia, Syria, and U.S. presidential elections, all within the past decade. While some recent developments suggest the relationship may start to improve, much of the future remains uncertain. Read on to see how the U.S.-Russia relationship has developed over the years, where exactly it stands now, and what it will look like in the future.

The United States and the Empire of Russia

The relationship between the United States and Russia, then the Russian Empire, dates back to before the U.S. government was even firmly established. During the American Revolutionary War, Russia ultimately decided to remain neutral and not offer any support to the British despite being a British ally at the time. The next time the two nations went to war, in the War of 1812, Russia was once again involved as it offered to serve as a mediator. While the offer was declined by the British, a relationship between Russia and the United States was forming.

Although the relationship had initially been positive, a degree of tension arose between the two nations when the Holy Alliance–Russia, Austria, and Prussia–threatened to intercede in Central and Latin America, a perceived violation of the U.S. sphere of influence established by the Monroe Doctrine. The issue was ultimately resolved and no serious conflict resulted. Russia would get back in America’s good graces when it nominally supported the United States during the Civil War, including sending ships to the American East and West Coasts. While historians contend this move was actually to avoid having those ships blocked or destroyed by British and French troops during the Crimean War, and although Russia never provided physical support, the presence of the Russian sailors was positive.

Perhaps the most significant interaction between the two, prior to World War II, was the purchase of Alaska, completed in 1867. Russia was keen to sell the land because it was too far away to administer and also because it needed money following the Crimean War. The United States initiated the purchase in 1859 but held off on actually buying the land until 1867 following the Civil War. The sale price was $7.2 million and was initially viewed as a mistake until large mineral deposits were discovered.

The United States and Russia continued their relationship into the 20th century during several important events. The first was the United States getting Russia and several European empires to agree to an Open Door Policy in China, which ensured its territorial integrity. The second was the United States, under Theodore Roosevelt, mediating the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905.

Even when the relationship was strained, the U.S. offered substantial aid to Russia following the outbreak of World War I and later during a massive famine in 1921-1923. However, the United States, along with other Allied governments, also sent troops in to undermine the new communist regime following their takeover and subsequent withdrawal from World War I. When the USSR was declared in 1922, all diplomatic ties were severed.

World War II and the Cold War

The United States did eventually reestablish diplomatic ties with the USSR in 1933. During World War II, the two countries would become allies, with the USSR receiving supplies from the U.S. as part of the Lend-Lease program and later when both countries fought the Axis Powers. These two nations, along with France, China, and the U.K. would also become the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council following the war.

That was the high point, however, and for the next 45 years or so, the relationship was increasingly tense during the Cold War. This was particularly true with the “Iron Curtain” descending on Eastern Europe in 1947 and America introducing its policy of containment. The two sides then squared off in a stalemate, which was occasionally punctuated by major events like the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. Both countries also engaged in a heated space race with the USSR launching the first satellite in 1957 and United States becoming the first and only country to land a man on the moon in 1969.

Tensions normalized somewhat in the 1970s with the first talks on reducing nuclear weapons stockpiles and for cooperation in space. However, they flared once more in the 1980s with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The decade closed, though, with resumed talks on disarmament. The 1990s began with a bang, or more specifically a coup in 1991. The coup failed and so did the USSR soon after, breaking into 15 countries later that year. The video below looks at the history of the Cold War:

After the Thaw

The fall of the Soviet Union was greeted hopefully by the United States with the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, aimed at collecting nuclear material, infamously named “loose nukes,” from the former Soviet Republics. The two also collaborated again on the space program, culminating with the International Space Station.

Relations began to cool again after both George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin came to power, particularly when President Bush withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty in 2002. This was followed by Russian opposition to the Iraq war, U.S. support for Kosovo gaining independence, and an American anti-missile defense system proposed for Poland. Relations between the two countries declined precipitously following the 2008 invasion of South Ossetia and the subsequent war between Russia and Georgia.

Following this episode, the then-incoming Obama Administration called for a policy “reset” in 2009. Things certainly seemed promising with the New START agreement that called for nuclear arms reduction between the United States and Russia in 2010, along with Russia agreeing to new sanctions on Iran’s nuclear program. From there, however, the situation took a turn for the worse again, when Russia supported Bashar al-Assad in Syria, alleged Russian spies were detained in the United States, and Russia cracked down on human rights in 2012 following Vladimir Putin’s election as president. Russia also expelled USAID from the country and made all NGOs register.

Although both countries came to some agreements to strengthen sanctions on North Korea following its nuclear weapons test in 2013, relations continued to deteriorate when Russia granted asylum to Edward Snowden later that year. This intensified significantly with Russia’s seizure and subsequent annexation of the Crimean Peninsula, as well as its support for separatists in Eastern Ukraine. These actions led the U.S. to place economic sanctions on Russia and expel it from the G8.

Most recently, the United States and Russia have continued to bicker over the Syrian conflict and Russian support for the Assad regime. However, the greatest spat appears to have come in the wake of the recent election when several U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that Russia had interfered in the presidential election through targeted hacking and leaking. This news caused President Obama to increase sanctions and expel 35 Russian nationals from the country. The CIA updated its assessment to conclude that not only did Russia interfere in the election, it did so to help elect Donald Trump.

Going Forward

While Russia and the U.S. have shared a tense relationship for more than a decade, the two countries see signs of hope with the election of Donald Trump. President Trump has seemed to confirm this with what he has already said concerning Russia. For evidence, one need look only as far as President Obama’s recent sanctions against Russia and President Trump’s subsequent praise of Vladimir Putin’s intelligence for not responding in kind. The following video looks at the potential relationship with Donald Trump as president:

President Trump indicated that he hopes to warm relations between the two countries not just with his words but also with his recent actions–namely, by nominating Rex Tillerson for Secretary of State. Tillerson was formerly the CEO of Exxon Mobile and has a lot of business experience working with the Russian government. In fact, Tillerson was once awarded Russia’s Order of Friendship by Vladimir Putin himself. While all of Tillerson’s experience with the country comes from his work in the private sector–acting on behalf of Exxon Mobil rather than the American government–early indications suggest that Russia is pleased with his selection.

Nevertheless, the U.S.-Russia relationship is dictated by more than just the president and his cabinet and that is where things start to get complicated. While Trump sang Putin’s praises for exercising restraint, Republican members of Congress were happy to see additional sanctions placed on Russia, which many considered overdue. In some cases, such as with Senator John McCain, the sanctions were not enough and he pledged to work for even tougher measures. Thus the jury remains out on the future of the relationship; however, the opportunity for improvement appears to be there.

Conclusion

The relationship between Russia and the United States has ebbed and flowed. At first, like many other countries in Europe, Russia treated the United States as a trading partner but not much else. However, with the dawn of the twentieth century and the ascension of the United States as one of the preeminent powers in the world, Russia began to take notice. This situation came to a head following World War II when they were the only two superpowers left standing, prompting competition for ideological control of the world.

However, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, early indications seemed to suggest the United States and Russia could finally work together and form a more collaborative relationship. Unfortunately, this was not to be the case, as the early 21st century featured more disagreement and mutual antagonism. With the rise of Vladimir Putin and his sustained grip on power, the situation has only deteriorated further. While newly elected President Trump has suggested a closer partnership, it remains to be seen if that will stand the test of his term or if Congressional Republicans will even allow it. In the meantime, the United States and Russia will continue their long, circling dance, interacting when necessary and quarreling regularly.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Story Behind the U.S.-Russia Relationship appeared first on Law Street.

Sponsored Content

Space law. It’s a concept that, to some of us, sounds ripped out of the movie “Xenon, Girl of the 21st Century,” “Interstellar,” or possibly “Gravity.” But I want you to think back to the last time you used your smartphone as a GPS. How about the last time you flew on a plane? Or the last time you checked the weather for your area. Or the last time you streamed an episode of your favorite Netflix original show. All of those activities are in some way governed by space law, and how it intersects with the distinct but related fields of cyber and telecommunications law.

But what is space law, why does it matter, and how does it affect the education of law school students right now? Read on for an exploration of space law, the ways it affects us each day, and a look at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln College of Law’s innovative space, cyber, and telecommunications law program.

So, What is Space Law?

At its most basic, space law is the set of international and national laws that regulate what governments and private companies do in space. It also encompasses facets of international law and business law.

The need for “space law” arose when the Soviet Union launched the first satellite in late 1957 and the U.S. completed its own satellite launch months later. After much negotiation, the Outer Space Treaty was concluded in 1967, laying out the basic tenants of space law that became the groundwork for the rest of the field. These principles fit a few themes–including freedom of exploration and use of space, that space is to be used for peaceful purposes, and (in a clear indication that these principles were designated during the Cold War) that “states shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner.” Check out the rest of the principles here.

Things have obviously changed since 1967, so these ideas have been expanded upon and undergone new developments. The United Nations’ Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOUS), which was a driving force behind the original Outer Space Treaty, has seen the development of four other treaties as well as developed five additional sets of principles.

But the creation of major new international rules have stalled the past several decades, while on the national level rule-making has accelerated. The U.S. enacted the first commercial space legislation in 1984 and continues to have the most detailed and advanced framework, including addressing topics such as commercial human space flight, liability for any third-party injuries, and asteroid mining. Many other nations have enacted legislation and look toward the U.S. framework as a model.

Why does any of this matter? After all–most of us aren’t launching space ships or trying to become astronauts. But these principles have allowed us to send up the satellites that we use for everything from satellite TV, navigation, banking, agriculture, and of course, military information. That’s where other aspects of law, like cyber law and telecommunications law come in.

Cyber Law 

Put simply, cyber law governs the use of computers and the internet. Current hot topics in cyber law include hacking, “the right to be forgotten,” and encryption. Cybercrime is also particularly pressing, whether the targets are private citizens or government entities.

Telecommunications Law 

Telecommunications law deals with broadcasting and electronic communication. In the United States, telecommunications laws and polices affect phone service, cable and TV programming, and wireless spectrum. Telecommunication law has seen significant evolution now that the internet has become so ubiquitous and will continue to change moving forward.

Why is it important to study all three?

Many of the issues covered by space, cyber, and telecommunications law see a significant amount of overlap. In fact, we couldn’t even talk about certain topics in cyber regulations and telecommunications–we wouldn’t even have access to much of this technology–without our exploration and use of space. According to the University of Nebraska Lincoln College of Law, the only school in the United States to offer a program that specifically teaches all three fields: “These three areas are intrinsically linked by the technology they require and the laws and policies that impact them.”

What’s Next in Space Law?

So, it’s clear space law, and the related fields of cyber and telecommunications law, affect each of our daily lives, in really commonplace ways. But a lot of the topics we’ve seen in the news lately also have the potential to be affected by these kinds of regulations.

Net Neutrality

Net neutrality–whether or not internet service providers should treat all content and sites the same–has increasingly become a hot button issue in recent years. Almost every 2016 candidate, from Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump has at least mentioned where they stand on the topic.

Net neutrality is based on the idea of the internet as a commodity–some companies have access to it and they provide it to paying consumers. For now, it’s been a mostly earthbound commodity. While there have been dalliances with satellite internet, none have ended up particularly successful. But that’s probably going to change soon–last year companies like SpaceX and OneWeb both announced plans to create satellites that could deliver broadband. This transforms net neutrality from a grounded, national concept to an international dilemma. As Slate’s Nicholas Nardini put it:

A space-borne Internet could skirt these threats. It might also skirt law enforcement and surveillance: While tech companies today often dodge warrants by storing data in foreign countries, the lawless sky offers an even surer refuge. And though net neutrality is the law for now in Europe and the United States, it doesn’t really exist elsewhere. Any network offering satellite Internet to the developing world is likely to sacrifice neutrality for efficiency.

Commercial Space Flight 

Commercial space flight may have sounded like a science fiction fantasy just a few years ago, but we’re inching ever closer to it becoming a reality. Bigelow Aerospace is trying to launch a few giant space habitats for some commercial use; it aims to  launch the first in 2020. It could be used by both “space tourists” as well as for scientific research. Virgin Galactic is working on commercial human space flight, planning sub-orbital flights in the next year or so, and SpaceX and other companies contract on cargo carriage to the International Space Station and, in the near future, astronaut travel.

But if private citizens are going to start going into space, laws that had for so long mostly focused on governmental and military operations are going to need to be reexamined. Legal issues currently addressed in US legislation like licensing for private flights, who is liable in the case of injury, informed consent, and so many other questions are going to have to be dealt with in other national legislation as “space tourism” becomes more than just a fun idea globally.

So, how do I become a Space Lawyer?

The University of Nebraska-Lincoln College of Law has the only program in the United States that combines the fields of space law, cyber law, and telecommunications law. Since 2007, Nebraska has offered a Space, Cyber, and Telecommunications Law certificate for J.D. students. J.D. students can specialize in space, cyber and/or telecommunications law during their studies by taking 15 credit hours of courses in one or more of these areas in consultation with faculty in the area. Nebraska Law for the past decade has also offered an LL.M. in these areas of law, and more recently began offering a doctorate (J.S.D.) in space law.

Nebraska provides opportunities for students interested in space law to get hands on experience, through conferences in both Lincoln and Washington D.C. and participation in events such as the Lochs Moot Court competition. According to Professor Matthew Schaefer, the Director of Space, Cyber, and Telecom Law Program, Nebraska also has a notable list of alumni, who work at places like the U.S. State Department, relevant think tanks, SpaceX, McKinsey Consulting, and U.S. Cyber Command, to provide connections and inspiration to current and future students.

Space law isn’t just for people who are going to work specifically with commercial companies like SpaceX or government agencies. The interplay between space law, cyber law, and telecommunications affects business transactions and international law on the ground too. And firms increasingly have to rely on lawyers who have knowledge of cyber law, given that the internet is now wrapped up in essentially everything we do. As Professor Schaefer put it:

Even if you’re not going to go off and work for a space company, again, space law is a really good case study in international business transactions and global business, also an excellent case study in international law as well.

So, are you looking to pinpoint the future of law? Reaching for the stars doesn’t sound too crazy anymore.

Click here to request more info. 

Resources

Primary

United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs: Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies

FCC: Telecommunications Act of 1996

Additional

Nebraska Law: Space, Cyber and Telecommunications Areas of Study

Space: Who Owns the Moon? | Space Law & Outer Space Treaties

American Bar Association: Space Law 101: An Introduction to Space Law 

 Bloomberg: The ‘Right to Be Forgotten’ and Other Cyberlaw Cases Go to Court

Law Street Media: FCC’s Spectrum Auction and Why it Matters 

Slate: The Final Frontier of Net Neutrality

University of Nebraska College of Law

Students at the University of Nebraska College of Law study in a friendly, collaborative environment with internationally recognized professors. Reasonable tuition costs, and excellent bar passage and employment rates are part of the reason that Nebraska Law is consistently named a best value law school. The College of Law is part of the University of Nebraska–Lincoln, a major research university and member of the Big Ten Conference. It is located in Lincoln, an exciting college town, the state capital, and a city of nearly 300,000 people. Learn more at law.unl.edu. The University of Nebraska College of Law is a partner of Law Street Creative. The opinions expressed in this author’s articles do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Street.

The post Looking to Launch a Career in Space Law? Nebraska Law is Here to Help appeared first on Law Street.

Katrina Pierson is a spokeswoman for Donald Trump who has previously dominated headlines when she defended some of Trump’s most seemingly indefensible positions. She also famously wore a necklace made out of bullets on air during a CNN interview.

#Trump defender Katrina Pierson wearing bullet necklace.. #orlandoshootings make it stop! pic.twitter.com/0q1CskztmG

— #ImWithHer (@utbrp) June 12, 2016

Recently, Pierson was tasked with speaking about Khizr Khan, the Muslim American Gold Star father who spoke about his son’s death in the line of duty at the DNC. Pierson took an interesting (and inaccurate approach) by blaming Captain Humayun Khan’s death on Obama’s policies. But Captain Khan died in 2004, four years before Obama even ran. Pierson’s historically inaccurate claim sparked a lot of humor on Twitter, in the form of the hashtag #KatrinaPiersonHistory. Check out some of the best entries below:

#KatrinaPiersonHistory – Obama shot Hamilton with Hillary as his second. (Broadway’s run by liberal revisionists.)

— Jeffrey Wright (@jfreewright) August 3, 2016

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 The Best of #KatrinaPiersonHistory appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, Houston-area mother Roni Dean Burren vented her frustration on Facebook over the wording of a passage in her son’s “World Geography” textbook. The book called African slaves in the United States “workers” and “immigrants.” Dean-Burren’s post and corresponding video have since attracted an immense amount of feedback, drawing millions of eyes on Facebook. McGraw-Hill has now responded to this outcry, concluding that the wording does not live up to the publisher’s standards.

Initially, McGraw-Hill released a statement saying that it intends to change the online version of the book immediately. Dean-Burren combatted this, arguing that most schools don’t use online versions, and the current print version if not changed will remain in libraries and classrooms for the next eight to 10 years. McGraw-Hill then issued a statement saying that it will in fact be changing the wording in the book’s next printing. The company is also offering supplements to be inserted in the current books.

There are so many issues with this wrongly worded passage. The classification of slaves as “immigrants” and “workers” not only completely diminishes the horrific nature of the malicious institution, but it incorrectly depicts the relationship between African slaves and the Europeans that had already settled in America–the very relationship that has resulted in the skewed perceptions and discrimination that African-Americans continue to struggle with today. The passage also goes into detail about the arrival of other Europeans who come to work as indentured servants “for little or no pay,” while there is very little mentioned about Africans’ status as slaves. Dean-Burren called this characterization of slavery within the passage as “erasure.” African slaves that “migrated,” as the textbook described, during the Atlantic slave trade between the 14th and 17th century, were not “workers.” They were brutally kidnapped and taken from their homes against their will, treated like animals and torn apart from their families, and brought to a foreign land as less than human. The were then physically and mentally abused and forced to do manual and degrading labor. The United States was built on the swollen and whipped backs of these slaves. To incorrectly communicate that in a textbook is a great disrespect to these slaves and the generations that have followed them.

The significance of this issue goes beyond honoring the lives of these slaves, and the generations that have followed them. Students needs to know what the world has been through in order to make informed decisions later in life. They need to know that we once lived in a world where being a person of color, or a different religion, or even being a woman, meant that you were less of a person. McGraw-Hill should be doing more to remedy this issue within this passage of its textbook–the ramifications could be a lot worse than it thinks.

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 McGraw-Hill to Edit Textbook that Refers to Slaves as “Workers” appeared first on Law Street.

In an exceedingly odd move, a legislative committee in Oklahoma voted this week to eliminate Advanced Placement U.S. History classes. This decision is part of a large, equally bizarre move to get rid of AP classes altogether across the state. Furthermore, the move away from AP U.S. History (APUSH) in Oklahoma is a facet of a much larger debate over what parts of American history we should be teaching our children.

The legislators who pushed for this change in claim that the APUSH curriculum only teaches “what is bad about America.” They also argue that it’s a revisionist view of history. Representative Dan Fish, who introduced the bill, also argues that it doesn’t fairly include a Christian perspective or teach “American exceptionalism.”

Before you think this view is coming from a few crazy crackpots, it’s important to point out that the Republican National Committee itself has weighed in on the debate. Last summer it released a resolution slamming the APUSH curriculum. According to the RNC, the recently revised APUSH guidelines: “reflect a radically revisionist view of American history that emphasizes negative aspects of our nation’s history while omitting or minimizing positive aspects.”

I’m sure some of you are wondering how people can quibble over history–after all, aren’t most facts undisputed? Well, it’s pretty much universally accepted that history can be taught from different perspectives and through various lenses–take the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II, for example. One perspective may teach that those bombings, while yielding tragic results, stopped the war and prevented further deaths through protracted fighting. Another perspective could argue that regardless of why the bombs were deployed, the mass destruction of civilians is unacceptable. While neither of these perspectives is necessarily wrong–they do each adhere to the facts of those historical events–they by nature tell different narratives.

So that leaves us with a conundrum–there’s no real right or wrong answer to how we should teach our history. Clearly, some people in Oklahoma disagree with how it’s being taught there, and while I can’t emphasize how much I disagree with their concerns, they are still allowed to have those concerns.

Like I mentioned above, there’s also a bigger debate brewing over the applicability of AP classes in general. They’re standardized nationwide–although of course only students who sign up for the elite classes take them. They are also mostly uniformly accepted by different universities, although they’re applied to university curriculum requirements on a case-by-case basis. Oklahoma lawmakers are trying to do away with those as a whole, too. Another representative, Sally Kern, claims that AP classes violate a law passed in Oklahoma last year that eliminates Common Core standards.

While I don’t necessarily disagree with the premise that states should be able to dictate what their students learn, I think that AP courses fall into a whole different category. First of all, they’re not universally prescribed; each student makes the choice about what class he or she wants to take. Most colleges do view them favorably, and again, they can be used to obtain certain college credits. Robbing Oklahoma’s students of that opportunity just because you don’t agree with the perspective from which the history curriculum is taught seems petty and short-sighted.

History will never be one sizes fits all, and I think that students should have every opportunity to learn about the important events in our nation’s history from as many view points as possible. That being said, with the inability to learn from our APUSH curriculum, Oklahoma’s students have just been robbed as one of those perspectives.

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 Will AP History Become a Thing of the Past in Oklahoma? appeared first on Law Street.

The 2015 recipients of the MacArthur Foundation’s grants have been announced. The MacArthur Foundation supports nonprofits that seek to make a difference in the world, particularly in the fields of human rights, conservation, security, aid to children, and technology. This year, the foundation gave grants to nine different nonprofits, ranging from $350,000 to $1 million. Some of these organizations have the potential to have notable effects on the law and policy fields for years to come. One of the groups chosen is called iCivics, and it was actually founded by a familiar face–former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

The online iCivics program aims to teach American children about our history and government in a fun, interactive way–games. The site also includes lesson plans. The goal is to get as many teachers in as many classrooms as possible using it to teach students about civics. O’Connor explained the importance of a civics education in a 2012 Washington Post interview, stating:

In over half the states in the union, civics education is not required. The only reason we have public school education in America is because in the early days of the country, our leaders thought we had to teach our young generation about citizenship … that obligation never ends. If we don’t take every generation of young people and make sure they understand that they are an essential part of government, we won’t survive. We don’t teach our own kids. It’s insane.

The site has been a pretty instant success; despite being around for just over five years, operating with an annual budget of under $2 million, and having fewer than ten employees, more than half of the middle school social studies teachers in the U.S. have signed up to use it. The MacArthur Grant will send an influx of another $750,000 of cash into iCivics‘ account, and the group is planning on using it to open up another office in Boston, as well as pay for other necessary costs to continue doing innovative and creative work.

I checked out the website, and it’s pretty easy to see how iCivics has been such a success. Games include “Supreme Decision” where the student gets to help decide the Supreme Court’s decision on a case that seems to mirror landmark Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines. In order to give students a view of the court on all sides though, there’s also “Argument Wars” where you argue Supreme Court cases against another “lawyer.” There’s a whole list of cases from which to choose.

The iCivics games aren’t just limited to the judicial branch. In “Executive Command” the player gets to be the President for four years. “Represent Me” allows a student to role play as a legislator attempting to interact with constituents. “Branches of Power” allows you to control all the branches of the government. Each of the games have different goals and achievements to be unlocked as well, some of which require students to look at various issues from two or more sides.

Although my memories of middle school civics are hazy, I certainly could imagine these games being a great way to teach young people who might otherwise find history and government studies boring. The games look like a lot of fun to play (I may or may not have seriously contemplated making an account and trying one out). Most importantly, the fact that they are free online allow pretty much any teacher to access them.

The MacArthur Grants are a great program, and they chose to honor many amazing nonprofits. Kudos to the Foundation for the work it does, and it’s great to see O’Connor’s innovative legacy receive another push forward.

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 Sandra Day O’Connor’s Startup Chosen for MacArthur Grant appeared first on Law Street.

This generation is supposed to be apathetic, image-obsessed, and glued to their phones, right? Well some young people in Denver are proving that perception wrong. Students from Jefferson County left class today in protest of possible changes to their history curriculum. No one is exactly sure quite how many students skipped school to help with the protest, but estimates put the figure at around 700. The protest was short lived, ending around 10:15am, because the students did want to show that despite disagreements about the curriculum, they do respect their education.

While the exact changes that the curriculum would make appear to be unclear, we do know that there would be an intense focus on the positive aspects of American life, while downplaying some of the more negative periods of our nation’s history. According to the Denver Post:

Community members are angry about an evaluation-based system for awarding raises to educators and a proposed curriculum committee that would call for promoting ‘positive aspects’ of the United States and its heritage and avoiding material that would encourage or condone ‘civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law.’

The curriculum would also “promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free-market system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights.”

So, the students are creating quite a meta-protest. They’re protesting the removal of conversations about civil disobedience by creating civil disobedience, albeit peaceful.

Revisionist history is tempting, and many countries, states, and groups are susceptible to downplaying negative aspects of the past. That’s tough to do though, because its important we learn from history. Furthermore, downplaying protests that have happened in the past de-legitimizes the rights of so many Americans that were won through our ability to stand together and lobby our government. Freedom of Assembly is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights for a reason, and our history shouldn’t ignore that.

This debate in Denver resembles many happening all across the country. What and how we teach our children is a constant argument. School districts are constantly arguing over the use of certain textbooks — like the case of the Texas history books earlier this year that critics were concerned put too large a focus on creationism. A system of charter schools in Texas was using books that question the age of the earth, links autism and vaccines, and claim that feminism makes women turn to the government to fill the place of a “surrogate husband.” The Denver case in particular seems to be a reaction to the Common Core stands that have drawn ire, particularly from conservatives, around the country. But the answer isn’t to rewrite history.

There’s a silver lining to this story though, and that’s the fact that those high schoolers recognize that there’s something foul afoot. As a country that consistently lags behind its peers in math, science, and pretty much everything else education-wise, getting kids interested in learning is way more than half the battle. While the Jefferson County school board’s attempt to mess with the curriculum is disappointing, something weirdly good is happening there. Because I can almost guarantee you that 20 years from now those kids aren’t going to remember what particular historical events they learned about in class. They’re going to remember the time they banded together and stood up for what was right, which is the perfect lesson.

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 Denver Students Walk Out to Protest County’s Attempt to Re-Write History appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Thirteen years ago yesterday our country was shaken to the core. I was sixteen, skipping school and watching some awful show on television when the program was interrupted by the news reporting on the first airplane hitting the Twin Towers in New York City. Not even 20 minutes later, as the news anchors were still reporting on the crash, we all watched as another plane crashed into the second tower. It was live TV and there was no controlling what the viewers were going to see. The confusion and horror coming from the news anchors was something I could never forget. My brother and I sat in silence not knowing what to do, what to think, or what was going to happen next. Parents pulled their kids out of school and I remember this feeling of urgency in the air and the uneasiness of what could possibly happen next. Thousands of people had just lost their lives and the country witnessed it. There were no answers, only questions of why and what will happen next.

Every year we remember that horrendous day. It was a constant fear for the first year or two, but also a great feeling that our country had come together and we had heroes to thank daily. Budweiser aired a commercial during Superbowl XXXVI that really demonstrated the somber tone and respect the entire country had for the events of September 11, 2001. The ad was only shown once to ensure they did not profit from it in any way. Even today, 13 years later, it is the most moving dedication done in such a small amount of time.

Yesterday was a somber day for us all. Most news outlets covered the anniversary in addition to current events. While watching one of the programs I had to do a quick rewind to make sure I was hearing it correctly. Young America’s Foundation had gone to the George Washington University campus in Washington, DC last Friday, September 5, to interview students about the anniversary of September 11. YAF only had a few questions to ask these students:

1. Next week marks the anniversary of a major national event. Do you know what that is?
2. Do you know what ISIS is?
3. Did you know that ISIS is responsible for the beheading of two American journalists? If so, could you name one?
4. Are you aware of the celebrity “nude photo” hacking scandal? If so, could you name any of the celebrities involved?

The responses from these kids are just mind blowing…

So the total results:

• Six out of 30 students recognized that this week is the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks.
• Four out of 30 students were able to name one of the American journalists beheaded at the hands of ISIS.
• 29 out of 30 students were able to identify one or more celebrities involved in the nude photo hacking scandal.

The kid interviewed two minutes in genuinely reacts like he had no idea what had been going on and it clearly upset him, which is great but frustrating. Actually this whole situation is frustrating. How is it that college students in their late teens and early twenties know more about pop culture and the ridiculousness of a nude picture hacking scandal than they do about current events and the death of two Americans at the hands of terrorists? This is not only the responsibility of these young adults to know what’s going on but it is the responsibility of teachers, parents, and our society as a whole.

There are already so many issues with what kids are learning in the classroom today that this should not surprise me, but it honestly does. How is this possible? When I was growing up my parents and grandparents talked to me about Pearl Harbor and the significance of that date. We may have brushed through it in history class but it is a day that I remember because it was an important part of history. My grandparents even lost friends and family members during the attack on Pearl Harbor and World War II. The same could be said about 9/11 and the Iraq War that followed. Hell, there are even movies about the two events. While there have been about seven movies made about the Pearl Harbor attacks, nearly 20 have been produced about 9/11.

What has become of our younger generation? Things need to change or our society will become Idiocracy.

This video is a great representation of what is going on in our culture and it needs to stop. We need our children to be better and smarter and more informed. We are not only disappointing our parents and grandparents, but we are disappointing our country, our culture, the world, and our Founding Fathers! Flabbergasted.

I don’t want to end this post on a note of frustration for our society. Instead I want to share a moving video about the last surviving search and rescue dog who returned to Ground Zero yesterday, a place she had not been to since 2001.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Never Forget.

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 9/11 Never Forget? Not Exactly For These GW Students appeared first on Law Street.