A pastor who accused Whole Foods of anti-LGBTQ discrimination is now facing accusations and a lawsuit against him alleging that he made up the entire incident.

Jordan Brown, an openly gay pastor at the Church of Open Doors in Austin, Texas, filed a lawsuit against Whole Foods after he allegedly received a cake at the chain’s flagship Austin location on April 14 with an anti-gay slur written on it. While he requested that the bakery write “Love Wins” on top of the cake, he claims that the bakery associate decided to add homophobic language to it:

LOVE WINS FAG. That’s not the cake I ordered, @WholeFoods and I am offended for myself & the entire #LGBT community pic.twitter.com/cuxuv6mL3G

— Jordan D Brown (@PasJordanBrown) April 18, 2016

Brown’s suit alleges that he didn’t notice the writing until he was on his way home, and proceeded to pull the car over and call the corporate office to report what had happened. After he didn’t receive a response, he then called the store itself and received an apology from a Team Leader who promised to investigate the matter. However, a few hours later, he received a call back from the same employee who said that there appeared to be no wrongdoing on the part of the store or the bakery associate.

Brown proceeded to post a now-deleted video that same day in which he tearfully recounted the incident. He also pointed out that the seal on the box hadn’t been broken, as evidence that he hadn’t tampered with the cake.

On Tuesday, Whole Foods responded in a statement that shot down Brown’s accusations as “fraudulent.” The company also released security footage that pointed to the fact that Brown would have easily been able to see the writing through the clear portion of the packaging before he left the store. The company also stated that the bakery associate in question was a member of the LGBTQ community. As of publication, Brown hadn’t yet responded to the latest statements by Whole Foods.

If it turns out that Brown was faking the incident after all, he made a strange choice in choosing which company to go after. Whole Foods has a history of upholding LGBTQ rights as a company, offering benefits to same-sex partners since its founding and participating in pride parades. The company also reinforced its support for LGBTQ rights in its latest statement, posting a photo of its Austin staff with the caption #LoveWins.

The jury’s still out on whether or not Brown was making this up, but this response by Whole Foods is just the icing on the cake for anyone doubting his story. Stay tuned for updates.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Whole Foods Shoots Down Claims of Homophobia Against Openly Gay Pastor appeared first on Law Street.

There is a mixture of excitement and dread that permeates the air around the holidays. Excitement because, for most, we get a few badly-needed days off, we can expect at least a few gifts, and we get to talk to those friends and family who we haven’t seen in months. Of course, the dread comes in because we have to scrape together enough funds to return the favor of those gifts, and we have to talk to those friends and family who we haven’t seen in months.

Different generations have different fears about what they’ll run into on the long, wintry visit home. For high school and college students, it’s the questions from older relatives like, “Do you have a girlfriend/boyfriend/horde of cats?” For professionals, it’s the questions from younger and older relatives like, “Do you have a girlfriend/boyfriend/horde of cats?”

And for many, we are not looking forward to having the inevitable discussions about politics with the set-in-their-ways relatives whose views differ so completely from ours.

While we’d like life to be like the Thanksgiving SNL skit where all disputes are solved by playing a little Adele, sadly the the melancholy tones of “Hello” will not stop your aunt or your grandfather or your young cousin who doesn’t know any better from questioning your political views, or even your way of life.

To help you out, here is a list of issues that might come up, and how you can keep from pulling your hair out. Deep breaths, you can get through this. Though, breaking out into song may be necessary.

Islamophobia

A hot-button topic on the campaign trail and in the news is, of course, the Syrian refugee crisis and its connection to ISIS. These might be subjects you would like to avoid with your grandmother who says vaguely racist things on a daily basis, but what if they come up?

First and foremost, remain calm. This goes for any touchy conversation. It is probably the easiest to get angry with our own family members, but nobody ever changed their opinions after being yelled at to stop their racist bullshit.

Facts are your friend, in this case, so point out the facts. There are millions of U.S. residents who identify as Muslim, but there isn’t an exact number because census data doesn’t record religious affiliations. Do you know why? Because U.S. citizens are supposed to be free from religious persecution. “Supposed to be” being the key phrase, here. Furthermore, ISIS wants the western world to be afraid of Muslims, and it wants people to misunderstand Islam so the Muslim population will subscribe to ISIS’ extremist views. Luckily, despite misconceptions perpetrated by conservatives and the media, the millions of Muslims who live, work and protect America are not extremists.

Sexism

It is a truth universally acknowledged that men and women deal with societal expectations based on gender. The stereotypical “having it all” for girls means finding a husband, landing a great job, and having a few children. For guys, it means making enough money to easily and happily support their spouse and 2.5 children. Maybe throw in a golden retriever for bonus points.

But the reality is that not everyone wants what society expects. While your parents and grandparents may have fit into that model, an exceeding number of young professionals do not. Maybe you’re a woman who does not want marriage or children, but has instead decided to focus on her career. Maybe you’re a man who has decided to be a stay-at-home dad while your common-law wife works a 9-to-5. Whatever your life choices, the best thing you can do when you receive passive aggressive comments about them is not to apologize.

You don’t need to make excuses or explain your way of life. When someone says, “your biological clock is ticking” or “you’d better settle down with a man before all the good ones are taken!” call out those comments for what they are: judgmental and outdated. Nobody needs to conform to sexist gender roles to feel fulfilled. Do what makes you happy and don’t say sorry. *Cues happy dancing*

Homophobia

Don’t forget to pack your rainbow flag before heading home so you can wave it in the faces of all your homophobic relatives! It is sure to be both entertaining and effective.

In all seriousness, most peoples’ homophobia stems from religious beliefs. So, if anyone complains about the historical decision to legalize same-sex marriage, you can ask them for a reason LGBT people should not be allowed to marry–outside of religious excuses. If they cannot give any legitimate reasons (and let’s face it, there really aren’t any), just remind them that we are a nation of many religions, and not everyone agrees with Christian ideals. Then wave aforementioned rainbow flag.

“Those damn millennials!”

If you are one of the thousands of 20-somethings who suffer from student loan debt, you’ve heard yourself referred to as an “ungrateful millennial” more than once this year. The generations that came before worked their way through college, after all, so why are we complaining about paying back that money? Why do we all want free handouts?

You can remind whichever relative brings it up that, in 1979, the minimum wage was $2.90 and students could easily pay for a year of school (public schools were around the $3,000 price tag) by working a job over the summer. Today’s minimum wage is $7.25, and that $4.35 bump per hour doesn’t really cover the difference in tuition costs, which now leave students with an average of $30,000 in debt. And that’s just undergrad.

Show them the math, and then tell them about how much you have to pay back on your loans every month. That amount, plus rent, insurance bills, and various other expenses like car loans and gas money, don’t leave a lot of expendable income for young graduates trying to break into their respective industry. And that lack of money probably has something to do with many young people putting off other big ticket items in their lives: settling down, buying a house, having kids, etc.

Remember, the greatest tools in your arsenal are facts and a calm demeanor. Keep an open mind, and if all else fails, stop talking and stuff your face with sugar cookies.

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 How to Deal With Family and Politics During the Holidays appeared first on Law Street.

There has been quite a bit circulating in the news recently about a certain Kentucky clerk who refused to give marriage licenses to gay couples. The clerk in question, Kim Davis, ended up in jail for contempt of court and was released a few days later. She emerged from prison to a crowd of supporters and did a victory march to a song some of you may have heard of:

“Eye of the Tiger” is the most recognizable song written and performed by band Survivor, who, needless to say, was not happy.

I have not authorized the use of Eye of the Tiger for use by Kim Davis and my publisher will issue a C&D. This does not reflect my views.

— Jim Peterik (@jimpeterik) September 9, 2015

Peterik co-wrote the song, and after the band’s intention to serve a cease and desist order was publicly shared, a rumor began circulating that Davis would soon find herself sued for $1.2 million dollars.

But as much as we would all enjoy seeing this display of homophobia punished with such a hefty price tag, unfortunately, there is no evidence that it will happen.

The rumor seems to have spread from this article posted on NBC.com.co–a blog site with no actual affiliation to the National Broadcasting Company and a reputation for fake stories. Fake news tends to travel fast.

But, while it may have been untrue, it is just an exaggeration of Survivor’s outrage and legal intent. In a comment to CNN, Peterik said “I was gobsmacked. We were not asked about this at all. The first time we saw it was on national TV.”

Davis has not commented on the cease and desist order, but it looks like she will be “rising up to the challenge” of finding a new theme song.

The use of the motivational song “Eye of the Tiger” for Kim Davis’ purposes is disturbing for several reasons, not the least of which being that her actions are not inspirational. At all. And while we do enjoy freedom of religion in this country, what Davis did was not a reflection of that freedom. We are given the right to practice–or not practice–any religion. We are not, however, given the freedom to deny someone else’s rights, or to force our beliefs on other people. Especially when doing so would go against the commitment made to a job with the United States government.

The United States is a country that has a diverse mix of cultures, religions included. So, Kim Davis, while you may not agree with U.S. law, not everyone shares your viewpoints. If you cannot perform the job you agreed to perform, then quit. Problem solved.

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 No, Survivor Isn’t Suing Kim Davis–But They Aren’t Happy With Her appeared first on Law Street.

I say at least once a week that I want something on a t-shirt. Some quote or another that just rolls out of my mouth, out of a friend’s mouth, or out of the mouth of a Shonda Rhimes character. Some are life philosophies and would actually fit on a t-shirt (Shut Up. Dance It Out.) and some are way too long to put on a t-shirt unless it’s quite creatively done (“They share food, and they say things, and they move, and they breathe. Ugh. They’re like, happy.” “Kick them out.”).

I always want to emblazon these little puppies a tee or tank to (a) make myself squee and (b) irritate and confuse the cishets when I cruise down the street. I want an entire line of these snarky wonders for the gym: sample, “Lesbians love to eat their own.”

"Lesbians Love to eat their own." -Alice #TheLWordQuotes

— L Word Quotes (@TheLWordQuotes) May 27, 2011

I never actually make any of these t-shirts or tank tops.

But this week, Autostraddle did.

From crop tops to crew shirts, the online lesbian media hub has created a line of “Gal Pal” wear, just in time for summer’s last hoorah. And the cishets won’t know it–y’all might think, “oh, isn’t that cute, girls make such great friends to each other, adorable”–we actually mean it to spite you.

Because Autostraddle released–during their Gal Pal Week–a celebratory list of women characters having genuine friendships with other women characters in the media. And the kicker–a lot of these women are queer.

And this is important, because “gal pals” is typically a phrase used by mainstream or cishet (which, in case you don’t know, equals cisgender + heterosexual) media to erase queer women’s identities, desires, and relationships. Our romantic relationships on television are so often dismissed, denied, and washed away (is straightwashing a word?). When two women characters have phenomenal sexual and personal chemistry, they are so often dismissed as “gal pals,” not people who could be/are lovers (or would for sure be lovers if one were written as a man).

As is often necessary, I go to tumblr to provide further explanation:

So when Autostraddle wants to sell me a “gal pals” shirt, I want to buy it. Because yes, we do have gal pals (Meredith and Cristina, anyone?), and we should celebrate each other.

But we also have lovers and desires and chemistries that are erased by mainstream media under the label of “gal pals.”

So when the cishets might think my shirt (which, if my track record proves anything, I won’t actually buy) is cute, I’ll be snickering in my mind (like the wonderful tumblr user above)–“hehe, gal pals. It’s cute how you think you know what you’re talking about.”

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lesbian Humor is Amazing appeared first on Law Street.

Just a cursory glance at recent social movement-esque trends on Twitter reveals a disturbing tendency of national conversations.

I am currently arching one eyebrow–judging hard–at the fondness we seem to have for localizing national problems in Midwestern states. Observe: homophobia, we locate in Indiana with #BoycottIndiana, almost as though it is the only place with queerphobic laws. Racism and police violence, we locate in Ferguson, as though this city in Missouri itself embodies racism across the country. Even Colorlines.com, an excellent source for intersectional news about structural racism in the U.S., has a separate tab for “Ferguson” on its site. Many tweets hashtag the names of several Black men who were brutalized by cops (or cop stand-ins, in the case of Trayvon Martin), but the only location identified is #Ferguson. No #StatenIsland or #NewYorkCity (where Eric Garner was strangled to death) or #LosAngeles (where Rodney King was savagely beaten by cops in 1991).

Focusing on individuals rather than identifying larger trends (like city-wide implementation of racist stop-and-frisk policies, or nationwide and international waging of a racist “war on drugs”), this place-based use of hashtags allows us to displace racist violence into conveniently “conservative,” Midwestern states like Missouri and Indiana.

This is similar to the trend in films such as “Boys Don’t Cry” and “Brokeback Mountain,” which portray violent homophobia and transphobia as individual acts of hatred rather than structural realities. They also position these acts as being located primarily in rural locations like Falls City, Nebraska and the mountains of Wyoming.

While I was born and raised a city girl, I know (because I have friends, I’ve dated different folks, and I read things like this and this) that vibrant queer cultures exist in rural spaces, and, though I navigate the streets of New York City with the privileges of being white, I know that racist, queerphobic violence is inflicted vis a vis laws and police batons in city centers every day.

As writer Lauren Anderson notes,

[R]ural gay youth teach [urbanites]:
1. Identities are a process of collective action, not a condition waiting for discovery
2. Multiple visibility strategies in play
3. We need to stop moralizing about who does queerness right.

When we erase these kinds of perspectives by asserting that coastal urbanity is the only site of vibrant queer cultures, all it does is romanticize queerness in cities and propagates violence to fellow queers who are from rural areas and/or from Midwestern and southern cities.

And speaking of violence…

Using Ferguson to represent racism and Indiana to represent homophobia risk erasing the massive violences inflicted on queer people of color (as well as white queers and non-queer people of color) that occur in everyday life in cities. Frighteningly, it may well be precisely this erasure that makes #BoycottIndiana and #Ferguson so popular: if we blame individual conservatism and “backward” rural cultures, then we do not have to do the hard labor of dismantling the structural white supremacy and anti-queerness upon which this country–including its cities–operates.

(Looking for more than what I can explain with my limited perspective? Try renting Scott Herring’s Another Country: Queer’s Anti-Urbanism from the library, or read the introduction online here.)

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #Boycott Indiana, #Ferguson, and Romanticizing Coastal Cities appeared first on Law Street.

There’s good news coming out of California right now — the “gay panic” defense is no longer legal justification for murder.

The “gay panic” defense usually has been used for defendants in murder and assault cases. When using it, a defendant explains that he or she was overtaken by temporary insanity that led him or her to kill the victim. Usually the temporary insanity was sparked by an LGBT person supposedly making a pass at the defendant.

The “gay panic” (sometimes “trans panic”) defense usually isn’t used with the hope of getting a not-guilty verdict, but rather to get a manslaughter conviction instead of murder. Many states characterize a killing that occurs in a quarrel or heat of passion as manslaughter rather than murder because of the lack of premeditation. For a long time it was believed that people with repressed homosexual leanings may be susceptible to “gay panic,” so this is essentially a version of the “temporary insanity” defense — a horribly homophobic one with no scientific basis.

This week, California became the first state to actually ban use of the “gay panic” defense in court. Governor Jerry Brown just signed the bill after it passed the state legislature with convincing majorities.

It’s important to note that the “gay panic” defense hasn’t really been that effective in court, at least not in recent attempts. Some famous cases have included the 2002 killing of Matthew Shepard, a college student in Wyoming. Shepard, a gay man, was brutally beaten and killed by Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson. The defense attorney attempted to use the “gay panic” defense for McKinney, but the judge barred it.

But still, despite the fact that it’s not often used or believed, California did a great thing by outlawing it. The fact that it existed, even at the periphery, is offensive. First of all, there’s been absolutely no scientific basis to show that “gay panic” is an actual possibility. It’s offensive pseudo-science.

The “gay panic” defense also puts some responsibility on the victim. It implies that the victim did something — coming on to his killer — that led to his death. Using it to protect a murderer is really not that different than saying that a woman deserved to get raped because she was wearing a short skirt. It puts responsibility on the victim, when really, all responsibility should be on the killer. Executive Director of the National LGBT Bar Association, D’Arcy Kemnitz, made an equally apt comparison, saying:

Every time a woman walks past a construction site and a bunch of guys make propositions to her, should she be able to respond in an assault in maybe even a murderous fashion?

Another problem with the “gay panic” defense is that it also legitimizes homophobia — it says that being gay or trans in cases of the “trans-panic” defense is so abhorrent that it could throw someone into a state of insanity.

Even though the “gay-panic” defense has been mostly debunked, California should be applauded for formally delegitimizing it. It’s an important statement, and one that other states would do well to follow.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Danny Howard via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post “Gay Panic” Defense Outlawed in California appeared first on Law Street.

“Gay really is the new black,” proclaimed Daily News columnist John McWhorter in a recent article. John McWhorter is über insightful and I always enjoy watching him on Melissa Harris-Perry, but as Rosa Parks so eloquently said, “No.” No, gay is not the new black.

Courtesy of the Daily Californian

America’s legacy of racism is vastly different from its history of sexual-orientation discrimination and homophobia. The struggle for racial equality is also inapposite to the gay rights movement. The twenty-first century world in which the gay rights movement has so rapidly progressed has itself become a rapid place. Instant gratification is no longer instant enough. “Attention span” has become a sort of a misnomer, suggesting that our attention lasts long enough to actually span. Once upon a time, the adult attention span was somewhere around twelve minutes; that is, the average adult could stay focused on a task for twelve minutes without becoming distracted. Today, however, it’s dropped to five minutes. Some reports even claim that the average attention span on the Internet is two and a half seconds.

Courtesy of David Goehring via Flickr

That’s just ridic. Alas, these are the times in which we’re living. This wasn’t always the case.

Change used to happen at a snail’s pace and the civil rights movement reflects as much. Understanding then that “the arc of the moral universe is long but bends toward justice,” as Martin Luther King, Jr. put it, civil rights lawyers like Thurgood Marshall employed a strategy of chipping away at Plessy v. Ferguson’s wall of segregation. They slowly and methodically attacked the system piece by piece. After more than fifty years, the chipping-away strategy culminated with the Brown v. Board of Education cases in 1954 and 1955, reducing the wall of segregation to a pile of rubble. The gay rights movement on the other hand has bulldozed its way toward some semblance of equality. It was just the mid-1980s when the Supreme Court gave us Bowers v. Hardwick — when it upheld the constitutionality of a state sodomy law that criminalized private, consensual oral and anal sex between two gay men.

In Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 the Court overruled its decision in Bowers. And in the ten or so short years since Lawrence, discriminatory laws across the country have fallen at a neck-breaking pace. Now, I’d probably be hard-pressed to find many people who’ve even heard of Bowers v. Hardwick.

I’ll concede, the reasons the LGBTQ community has accomplished so much so fast are far more complex than I’ve intimated. Somewhere in the mix of reasons is necessarily that the world itself is a faster place today. But who the hell has the time or attention span to delve into all those complexities? Maybe I do? After all, I did spend oodles of time before and during law school thinking about all this stuff. So, after much thought and deliberation about this topic, I’ve come to the conclusion t–

What were we talking about again?

—

Chris Copeland (@ChrisRCopeland) is a staff attorney at a non-profit organization in the Bronx, a blogger, and a California ex-pat living in Brooklyn. When he’s not reading, writing, or watching horror, he explores the intersection of race and LGBT issues with Law Street.

Featured image courtesy of [Andy Smith via Flickr]

Chris Copeland

Chris Copeland is a staff attorney at a non-profit organization in the Bronx, a blogger, and a California ex-pat living in Brooklyn. When he’s not reading, writing, or watching horror, he explores the intersection of race and LGBT issues with Law Street. Contact Chris at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Gay is NOT the New Black appeared first on Law Street.

It seems that Democrat Brian Schweitzer, former Montana governor, has been watching a bit too much of “The Office.” It’s funny when Dwight Schrute, one of the characters, uses the term “gaydar” because he is Dwight. He truly believes that he orders an authentic device able to determine someone’s sexuality. That’s good, funny television.

When politicians use the word “gaydar,” however, they seem exactly like Dwight, which doesn’t look so good to constituents. Recently, Schweitzer made an anti-gay remark that may have decreased his appeal as a 2016 presidential candidate. Ever-so-slightly.

Here’s how it all went down. Marin Cogan, a journalist for National Journal, phoned Schweitzer to get his opinion on the defeat of Republican Eric Cantor in the Virginia primary. Schweitzer didn’t exactly share his thoughts on Cantor’s defeat, but rather on his sexuality.  “Don’t hold this against me, but I’m going to blurt it out. How do I say this … men in the South, they are a little effeminate.” When Cogan asked him what he meant, he explained:

They just have effeminate mannerisms. If you were just a regular person, you turned on the TV, and you saw Eric Cantor talking, I would say — and I’m fine with gay people, that’s all right — but my gaydar is 60-70 percent. But he’s not, I think, so I don’t know. Again, I couldn’t care less. I’m accepting.

At least he ended on that note, right? So redeeming.

Yes, that is pretty insensitive. But Texas Governor Rick Perry may have outdone Schweitzer in the unofficial contest to see who can best speak filter-free and simultaneously offend an increasingly important demographic. Perry’s shining moment occurred when he compared homosexuality to alcoholism not long after endorsing “reparative therapy” for gays and lesbians who seek to change their sexual orientation through counseling.

In his 2008 book, Perry made the following statement: “Even if an alcoholic is powerless over alcohol once it enters his body, he still makes a choice to drink,” he wrote. “And, even if someone is attracted to a person of the same sex, he or she still makes a choice to engage in sexual activity with someone of the same gender.” He has since stood by that comparison.

Does this count as a homosexual act?

As most of us know, Perry and Schweitzer are not the only politicians with questionable opinions about the LGBT community. Even more appalling contenders for the “who-can-best-offend-homosexuals” contest include Scott Esk, a Republican candidate for Oklahoma’s house of representatives, and Gordon Klingenschmitt of Colorado. Both claimed recently that those committing acts of homosexuality are “worthy of death.” Maybe Klingenschmitt is just mad about his last name and was unsure how to express that sentiment.

So, gays are comparable to alcoholics and just need to go to corrective therapy possibly led by Rick Perry, and Brian Schweitzer will find them with his 60-70 percent accurate gaydar. They’d make a great team. It is quite possible that their comments will lead to their rapid defenestration, or at least weighty consequences if they ever do try for office again.

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Benson Kua via Wikimedia]

Marisa Mostek

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

The post Offensive Gay Statement Showdown: Rick Perry vs. Brian Schweitzer Edition appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Holidays Law Street readers!!!

Have you missed me?  It’s only been two weeks, but it feels like a month has gone by since I’ve checked in.  No need to DTR –I know in my heart we’re exclusive.

As I was exploring the crevices of my bag of emotions, I came across a bit of news about the platform that I use to communicate on here, WordPress. WordPress is the conduit through which material is posted to the site you see before you. Side note: I know that I don’t give copyright law a lot of my love so this one is for you, girl.

The company that owns WordPress, Automattic, has proclaimed its intentions to sue Straight Pride UK, an anti-homosexual group for “knowingly materially misrepresenting” a copyright infringement claim. Yep, that’s a crime. It all began in August, when Straight Pride utilized the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to issue a takedown notice to Automattic for material that was posted on the blogging site. The material consisted of an interview given by the anti-gay collective to a student journalist, Oliver Hotham. Hotham then posted the interview to his blog, which had been delivered to him via Straight Pride’s press representative in an attachment titled “Press Release.” Straight Pride claims that the interview was instead intended to be a private release and included a notice that the content was not permitted to be reproduced without consent. Automattic originally complied with Straight Pride’s takedown notice (the DMCA mandates such action to avoid further suit), but announced this past Thursday that enough is enough. In a recent blog post, Paul Sieminski, general counsel for Automattic, noted that these censorship actions have become “increasingly common” and are especially “infuriating.” Thank you, Paul.

Here’s what I think. Blog sites, such as these, need to put those cojones on display every so often.  The DMCA serves to protect copyrightable material, not to stifle unbecoming content so that it never sees the light of day. It wasn’t meant to chill speech but rather to provide incentive for authors to share their expressions with the public. It seems to me that this material was given to Hotham willingly and that it also falls under the fair use provision of the Copyright Act allowing for the reproduction of content for comment or criticism.  The DMCA shouldn’t be used as a vehicle to trample over our First Amendment rights! If bloggers have to post in fear of legal action, the purpose of blogging – sharing reviews on material that’s usually already public – will be muted. Of course, certain legal parameters must be in place to maintain a sense of order just as we have in our physical lives, but where is the line drawn? When does protection morph into suppression?

My only issue with this is that I wish the notion of ceasing internet censorship would have been brought up on a less politically polarizing matter. I fear that the issue of censorship will get lost among the gay rights activists’ amicus briefs. I’m not at all implying that gay rights is not paramount to censorship (because I honestly believe it is) but even now I’m finding myself getting lost in between the rock and hard place that these two issues present. They should be flushed out in turn and on their own merits.

Read the entire complaint against Straight Pride here.

Gena.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Armando Torrealba via Flickr]

Gena Thomas

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post WordPress Takes Action Against Censorship appeared first on Law Street.