Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Pardon Me?

As the investigation into the Trump Administration’s ties to Russia continues to heat up, Trump has reportedly asked for more information about the power of his presidential pardon. Specifically, he has asked about the power he has to pardon his aides, family members, and even himself.

In 1974, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) explained that Nixon could not pardon himself. https://t.co/KKfSVe3Vzx

— Walter Shaub (@waltshaub) July 21, 2017

He has also asked questions about the reach of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation. According to the New York Times, Trump’s team has been looking into whether it’s possible to fire Mueller or some members of his staff. Trump claims that Mueller should not be looking into any issues other than the allegations of collusion with Russia during the 2016 election. That worry isn’t without precedent. Kenneth Starr’s investigation into former President Bill Clinton’s land deals in Arkansas eventually led to his impeachment after it was discovered he had lied about an affair. But many point to Trump’s shakiness when it comes to Mueller as evidence that his team is increasingly uncomfortable with the amount of scrutiny placed on the president.

Bonus: for more info on what a presidential pardon actually is, check out Law Street’s explainer.

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 RantCrush Top 5: July 21, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Social media has the ability to bring together people from all walks of life to interact. But the ensuing interactions aren’t always positive–the ubiquity of social media has opened up plenty of people to harassment. While online harassment can include a variety of forms–including cyberbullying, cyberstalking and revenge porn–there are other forms of online harassment that you may start to hear more about moving forward: doxxing and swatting. Read on to learn more about these forms of online harassment, some of the more prominent victims of them, and the potential legal ramifications in the United States.

What are Doxxing and Swatting?

Doxxing 

Doxxing, which comes from the word “document,” is the release of an online user’s private information, including but not limited to photo, address, birthdate, and Social Security number. This release is usually done for a particular purpose–for example, to reveal the anonymity of a person online. Someone who operates under their own name–say, a journalist–could also be doxxed, if their personal information is disseminated to the internet. And it’s not just individuals who can be doxxed, as the term can be applied to group membership. But no matter who is doxxed, it’s safe to say that someone who doxxes someone else intends to cause some sort of harm.

Swatting 

Swatting is another form of online harassment, which can be sometimes (but not always) connected to doxxing. Swatting involves falsely reporting an emergency, in the hopes that a “swat” team or other law enforcement officers show up to the location that is being targeted. According to the National 911 program:

The calling party will often report they are involved or nearby as a witness to a home invasion, active shooter, or hostage situation, attempting to muster the largest response possible. Often, the law enforcement response is substantial, with police confronting the unsuspecting victims at gunpoint, only to learn that there is no real emergency.

Those who attempt to cause a swatting incident use several techniques, including: caller ID spoofing, TTY relay technologies, and social engineering.

Swatting is usually done with the intent of causing fear in the subject, or occasionally as a cruel prank.

What are some real-life examples of doxxing and swatting?

There have been many high-profile examples of both doxxing and swatting. From politicians to celebrities to journalists, it’s become an increasingly common practice. It’s also important to note that doxxing and swatting aren’t practices limited to one particular ideology, political party, or group. During the 2016 election, both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton supporters accused each other of the practices, whether those claims were substantiated or not.

Here are a couple of examples of each:

Doxxing: Anonymous 

Anonymous, the well-known group of “hacktivists,” has frequently doxxed various individuals it has decided to attack. Perhaps most notably, Anonymous made headlines in 2015 when it released a long list of Ku Klux Klan members. The list included alleged members and sympathizers’ real names, as well as their social media accounts.

Doxxing: GamerGate

In 2014 the GamerGate controversy broke, leading to online harassment for some women in the video game industry. One relatively common practice was doxxing–for example Brianna Wu, a female game developer who is now running for Congress and was targeted during the controversy, was doxxed. Other women involved in the gaming industry were doxxed as well, including Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian. Some tangentially related figures, like actress Felicia Day, were also doxxed. Day’s personal information was released after she wrote an essay about her opinion on GamerGate.

Swatting: Ted Lieu 

Congressman Ted Lieu, who currently represents the 33rd District of California, was swatted when he was a state senator. When he was swatted, Lieu had recently introduced a bill that would actually increase penalties for anyone who engaged in swatting behavior. In April 2013, the police received a call from someone pretending to be Lieu, who claimed he had shot his wife. Lieu was actually out but his wife, Betty, was in the house. Police went to the house and made Betty and their nanny exit the house with their hands up.

Swatting: Celebrities

A number of celebrities have been swatted, perhaps most famously Lil Wayne. In March 2015, an anonymous caller called the police and claimed that four people had been shot at his house in Miami Beach. Miley Cyrus was swatted in 2012, after reports of an armed kidnapper and shooting at her California home. Ashton Kutcher and Justin Bieber were both swatted by a 12-year-old Southern California boy in 2012. Dozens of other celebrities have been victim to swatting, including Simon Cowell, multiple members of the Jenner/Kardashian clan, Rihanna, Tom Cruise, Chris Brown, Clint Eastwood, and Taylor Swift.

Laws Against Doxxing and Swatting

Whether or not doxxing is technically illegal is somewhat up for debate. Most countries don’t have laws that specifically prohibit doxxing, although there are some that have codified it. In the UK in 2016, doxxing was explicitly added to a list of behaviors that can be prosecuted. But in most places, doxxing can be prosecuted only if it’s deemed to fall under another kind of criminal behavior, such as harassment. In cases where a person’s private information, like a Social Security number, is doxxed, it could constitute identity theft. That being said, it’s very difficult to prosecute people for doxxing because it is so often done under the cloud of anonymity. Sometimes it happens across state or country lines. At the end of the day, it’s a tough issue to prosecute.

The legal lines when it comes to swatting are slightly more clearly defined. For one, making false reports to police officers are illegal in many places. And plenty of people have been prosecuted for their role. Individual states, including California, have specifically implemented anti-swatting laws–it was while working on those laws that Lieu was actually swatted himself.

In 2015, Representative Katherine Clark (D-MA) introduced legislation that would have made swatting expressly illegal in Congress–the Interstate Swatting Hoax Act. In this bipartisan effort, Democrat Clark was joined by Republican Representative Pat Meehan of Pennsylvania. Clark’s office published a release that explained the dangers of swatting and pointed out that it’s actually quite costly:

The FBI estimates 400 swatting attacks occur every year. Some attacks, however, have been reported to cost local law enforcement agencies as much as $100,000.  The most serious cost of these attacks is the danger they pose to emergency responders, innocent victims, and their families. Swatting attacks have resulted in injury to law enforcement officers, heart attacks, and serious injury to victims.

The bill didn’t end up making it to a vote but perhaps unsurprisingly, Clark herself was swatted in 2016. An anonymous call made to the local police claimed that there was an active shooter at her home.

However, like with doxxing, it’s very difficult to determine who the perpetrator of a swatting crime is. In general, doxxing and swatting are versions of harassment that require some sort of technological sophistication to be able to pull off. That makes it difficult to identify, arrest, and prosecute suspects.

Conclusion

Doxxing and swatting are just two examples of the kind of harassment made possible by the internet. But while both wouldn’t be possible without the internet, they can lead to real world consequences. For example, an emotional video went viral in 2015 where video game live-streamer named Joshua Peters described how when he was the victim of a swatting, police aimed a gun at his 10-year-old brother who happened to open the door. Given that SWAT raids can lead to officers mistakenly shooting someone, or shooting someone for a relatively minor infraction, it’s not impossible to imagine that swatting could turn deadly for a victim. While it’s hard to prosecute doxxing and swatting, they are clear markers that online harassment doesn’t just affect us online.

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 Doxxing and Swatting: New Frontiers in Online Harassment appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been over a month since Justin Bieber’s latest album “Purpose” hit music shelves across the country, reminding women in their tweens, teens, and mom jeans just how much we all love the “Biebs.” But if anyone isn’t happy with the megastar after introducing chart topping ear worms like “Sorry” and “What Do You Mean,” it’s the San Francisco residents who are pissed about their Bieber-painted streets.

As part of a guerrilla  marketing campaign promoting the album, advertisers spray painted Bay Area sidewalks with graffiti promoting the November 13 release. But after multiple rainstorms the paint still hasn’t washed away, prompting city officials to go after the pop star and his record label.

SF City officials documenting the @justinbieber related “tagging” on San Francisco sidewalks pic.twitter.com/4KBJAKyEXr

— Damian Trujillo (@newsdamian) December 28, 2015

San Francisco’s city attorney Dennis Herrera sent a letter to executives from Def Jam Records and Universal Music Group Monday, vowing to “aggressively pursue all available penalties and costs from those responsible for lawless marketing tactics that intend to financially benefit Mr. Bieber and your respective companies.”

Matt Dorsey, a spokesperson for Herrera, isn’t sure exactly how much the clean up will cost, but noted to NBC Bay Area that the letter states the label could be liable for civil penalties of up to $2,500 for each violation. San Francisco currently spends approximately $20 million annually of tax payers’ money to remove graffiti from its streets.

For an interactive map of locations and photos of Bieber graffiti click here

But city officials are concerned with more than just the cost of removing the ads, they’re worried about public safety as well. Herrera noted in the letter that the graffiti poses a possible threat to pedestrians, by “intentionally creating visual distractions on busy rights of ways.” He also fears that the marketing campaign “irresponsibly tells our youth that likeminded lawlessness and contempt for public property are condoned and encouraged.”

Some people believe the companies may have planned for the negative exposure in advance, even setting aside money in case of possible legal fees associated with the illegal promotion tactic. In some cases the fines from the guerrilla marketing seem worth it for companies in exchange for the huge publicity that came with it.

So far Bieber, his record label, and distributor haven’t responded to the letter, but Dorsey is hoping they “make things right.” But is it too late now to say sorry?

Alexis Evans

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

The post San Francisco Prosecutor Goes After Justin Bieber’s Illegal Graffiti appeared first on Law Street.

Celebrities are often involved in lawsuits, and whether they’re the target or the plaintiff, most have pretty high powered legal teams to protect them. But occasionally they’ll have to sit through depositions under oath. What comes out of these depositions can sometimes veer into comedic gold. Check out the top five funniest celebrity depositions in recent years:

5. Tom Cruise

Tom Cruise is known for the “Mission Impossible” films, his adherence to Scientology, and that time that he jumped on Oprah’s couch and it was super weird.

In 2013, Cruise’s relationship with Katie Holmes hit the rocks. In the tabloid fall out that followed, two magazines–In Touch and Life & Style–claimed that he “abandoned” his daughter Suri. During the lawsuit, he gave a deposition in which he had some pretty fantastically weird quotes.

For example, he explained why it’s just so much more convenient to fly on private planes: “Generally its easier, yes … it does save – it does save time. Sometimes the flight itself is longer if you have, you know…but yeah, it’s better. It’s much more comfortable.”

There was also an exchange in which he compared his job and resulting absence from his daughter to fighting in Afghanistan:

Lawyer:  ‘Now, your counsel has publicly equated your absence from Suri for these extended periods of time as being analogous to someone fighting in Afghanistan.  Are you aware of that?’

Cruise:  ‘I didn’t hear the Afghanistan, but that’s what it feels like, and certainly on this last movie, it was brutal.  It was brutal.’

While it’s easy to respect that Cruise deeply missed his daughter, comparing his absence to shoot a movie to a soldier deployed in Afghanistan went way too far, and showed how out-of-touch the actor is.

4. Kanye West

In 2014, Kanye West was served with a lawsuit in which he was accused of beating a photographer and smashing the photographer’s camera. During the deposition, which was obtained by TMZ, he had some fantastic standout quotes.

One of the best, and most humble, was: “I’m the smartest celebrity you’ve ever f—— dealt with. I’m not Britney Spears.”

He also didn’t take too kindly to the questioning from the plaintiff’s attorney, stating:

I’m in the business of trying to make dope s— for the world.  You’re in the business of representing scums and trying to make as much money as long as there’s this lapse in the law.

3. Paula Deen

Everyone’s favorite racist chef Paula Deen had to give a deposition after she was sued by a woman named Lisa Jackson, who claimed that Deen subjected her to sexual harassment and racial discrimination. Top quotes from the deposition included when Deen exclaimed that “of course she’s used the N-word,” and then when asked about the context explained:

Well, then, tell me the other context in which you’ve used the N-word?
I don’t know, maybe in repeating something that was said to me.
Like a joke?
No, probably a conversation between blacks. I don’t — I don’t know.

She also explained the other kinds of totally PC jokes she tells saying:

Okay. Would you consider those to be using the N word in a mean way?
That’s — that’s kind of hard. Most — most jokes are about Jewish people, rednecks, black folks. Most jokes target — I don’t know. I didn’t make up the joke, I don’t know. I can’t — I don’t know.
Okay.
They usually target, though, a group. Gays or straights, black, redneck, you know, I just don’t know — I just don’t know what to say. I can’t, myself, determine what offends another person.

She also described a wedding she had attended in which the servers were all black men in suits as a “really southern plantation style wedding.”

While the lawsuit was eventually settled, Deen certainly didn’t come across as a bastion of acceptance.

2. Lil Wayne

Lil Wayne got into a legal battle with Quincy Jones III over the film “The Carter,” which was a look at Lil Wayne’s life. During Lil Wayne’s deposition during a countersuit, it was clear he wasn’t taking the whole matter too seriously. A section of the deposition is below:

If you don’t want to watch the whole video, top quotes include when Lil Wayne didn’t like the lawyer questioning him very much:

Lil Wayne: “What’s his name?” [referring to the lawyer]
Judge: “Pete Ross.”
Lil Wayne: “Pete Ross, that’s a stupid-ass question.”

He also consistently made no sense:

Lil Wayne: “[The judge] can’t save you.”
Lawyer: “What does that mean?”
Lil Wayne: “I was talking to myself.”

And generally gave some fantastic answers:

Lil Wayne: “How would I describe my image in the media? I wouldn’t describe it.”
Lawyer: “Well, how would you describe it if you had to?”
Lil Wayne: “I don’t have to.”

Lil Wayne ended up losing over $2 million to Jones as the result of the countersuit.

1. Justin Bieber

The winner of the funniest celebrity deposition, however, is Justin Bieber himself. He was sued in 2014 after his bodyguard allegedly beat up a photographer.

Bieber comes across as a supreme asshole, and the video is definitely worth a watch, but if you don’t get a chance, here are some of the better quotes. Both Usher and Australia seem oddly difficult concepts for Bieber to understand.

Photographer’s lawyer: Do you know Raymond Usher IV?
Bieber: No.
Photographer’s lawyer: Do you know an individual in entertainment by the name of Usher?
Bieber: Yeah. Usher. That sounds familiar.

Photographer’s lawyer: Do you remember being in Australia, ever?
Bieber: I don’t know if I been to Australia. [turns to his counsel] I been to Australia?

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 Celebrities in Court: Top Five Funniest Celebrity Depositions appeared first on Law Street.

Justin Bieber can’t seem to stop getting into legal trouble whether in the U.S. or abroad. Bieber now has to show his face in an Argentinean court to provide answers to some assault allegation, or face arrest. Now Interpol has gotten involved, and it seems like Bieber is caught in an interesting Catch-22.

The case started on November 9, 2013, when Bieber was partying in a nightclub in Buenos Aires called “Ink.” A paparazzo named Diego Pesoa was there and attempted to take pictures of the singer. Bieber’s bodyguards were not having that, and apparently chased and beat Pesoa, who is now claiming that his injuries were bad enough to require hospital attention. Bieber is being accused of sending the body guards to go beat Pesoa up.

Bieber has obviously since left Argentina, but the Argentinean courts are demanding that he provide information about what happened. Now, an investigative judge, Magistrate Facundo Cubas, has demanded that Bieber provide a statement about what happened, although no charges have been filed yet.

Bieber now has 60 days to return to Argentina and give his testimony. Interpol, the Argentinean branch of the international police force, is tasked with locating Bieber and notifying him of Cubas’s request.

This creates a weird choice for the singer though–if he does choose to go back and give his testimony, and it results in charges being filed against him,  and he is found guilty, he could spend up to a year in prison. If he doesn’t show up, an international arrest warrant will be issued.

This is by no means the first brush with the law for Bieber, nor is my money on it being the last. Consider the time that he was deposed as a result of a battery suit brought against him by a photographer. Said deposition led to one of the most spectacularly asshole-like performances of all time, chronicled in this excellent mashup video created by TMZ:

I have to say, my favorite part is right at the beginning when he pretends to not know what Australia is, but he also calls the lawyer deposing him “Katie Couric,” which is pretty good. He also appears to mix up the words “instrumental” and “detrimental.”

There was also a case earlier this year when a neighbor in Calabasas, California accused Bieber of egging their house. The neighbor claimed that the incident led to damage to the house to the tune of thousands of dollars. Bieber ending up pleading no contest to the charge of misdemeanor vandalism, and was put on probation, ordered to pay restitution, do community service, and go to an anger management course. He has also been caught drinking while driving, and plead guilty to a DUI.

Overall, Bieber is pretty much the living embodiment of what can happen when a young person gets way too rich way too young and never really has to deal with any consequences of their actions. Hopefully this Argentinean suit, as unlikely as it may be, will provide some real consequences for the singer.

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post Where in the World is Justin Bieber? His Legal Troubles Continue appeared first on Law Street.

As you may very well know, citizens of the United Sates can form and sign petitions on the White House Website. If a petition reaches 100,000 signatures in 30 days, the White House has to respond, though they sometimes respond to petitions with fewer signatures. For example, earlier this summer, a new petition went up asking the White House to change the name of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport to the Tim Howard National Airport, in honor of Howard’s great performance as goalie for the United States Men’s Soccer team. This got me thinking, what are the wackiest, craziest, coolest, and dumbest White House petitions ever received? Well, here are my ten “favorites” (besides the Tim Howard one). This list includes a couple classics that you may of heard of before and some newer ones that you most likely have not. Enjoy!

[wooslider autoslide=”false” slide_page=”we-the-people-top-10-weirdest-white-house-petitions” slider_type=”slides” limit=”10″ thumbnails=”default” order=”DESC” order_by=”date”]

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post We the People: Top 10 Weirdest White House Petitions appeared first on Law Street.

This week I’m beginning to lose faith in my fellow Americans. Between New York mother Janelle Ambrosia verbally harassing a black man and the release of not one but two videos of Justin Bieber making n***** jokes, I literally can’t even.

Why are these instances related? Because both Ambrosia and Bieber are setting examples for young, moldable minds. Even worse, when given the opportunity to apologize, Ambrosia refused and tried to use bipolar disorder as a scapegoat. On the other hand, Bieber said he had to take responsibility for his actions, and seemed to show remorse for his four- and five-year old mistakes.

* [This video contains vulgar language, definitely NSFW]

Though Buzzfeed recently classified Justin Bieber as my “arch nemesis,” I must say I was glad to see a remorseful reaction out of the celeb. Bieber and his manager, Scooter Braun, both posted images to Instagram conveying messages of forgiveness for grave mistakes. In an interview with The Hollywood Report, Bieber made an important point:

“I just hope that the next kid that age who doesn’t understand the power of these words does not make the same mistake I once made years ago.”

By no means are Bieber’s words forgivable or justifiable. But he makes a point that Ambrosia could stand to learn from. While the mother of two relentlessly screamed at the man, self-identified as Narvel, she set the example for her children that calling a black person the n-word is acceptable. Ambrosia received a wide array of backlash on Twitter:

@JaneAmby You say you’re apologizing now, but we all know you’re going to do it again. Great way to set an example for your kids. -_-

— Bradley James (@bradleysgfx) June 4, 2014

The mother of the year award goes to..*drum roll* @JaneAmby

— Matt (@akaMattikins) June 6, 2014

No room for hate

This is the 21st century people! How is it possible that someone can so blatantly charge at someone, hurling insults and threats, solely based on the color of his skin? Here at Law Street, we do not let this behavior slide; we called out One Direction’s media gaffe as well. But I digress. In my opinion, Ambrosia committed three terrible blunders:

1. Using filthy, racist language in front of her children.
2. Refusing to apologize for her unwarranted verbal attack.
3. Blaming the situation on mental health.

I could go on about racism, but the bottom line is that in this day and age, racism is simply unacceptable. I will never acknowledge stereotypes as accurate or valid descriptions of certain people. Each person is individually characterized by his or her upbringing and personal experiences, nothing else. The worst part of Ambrosia’s and Bieber’s public displays of racism are the children who look up to them, who will think n***** is an acceptable word to use, and who may keep racism alive.

I could not stop thinking about Ambrosia’s attack on Narvel after watching the video for the first time. Needless to say, I watched the video at least ten more times and each time my blood boiled. Then she had the nerve to blame this entire situation on bipolar disorder. With mental health being such a hot topic right now, I think Ambrosia just dug herself a deeper hole. Mental illness is not to be taken lightly, nor does it make her any less guilty.

I hope Ambrosia takes a page out of Bieber’s book. Whether he was sincere or not, we will never know. As for Ambrosia’s children, when they are older and can understand the backlash their mother received, let it be a lesson: racism is not to be taken lightly. There is a difference between self-protection and blatant hatefulness. And honestly, it takes more energy to hate someone than it does to keep walking.

So let us be reminded:

“If you have nothing nice to say, don’t say anything at all.”

—

Natasha Paulmeno (@natashapaulmeno)

Image courtesy of [Daniel Ogren via Flickr]

Natasha Paulmeno

Natasha Paulmeno is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends. Contact Natasha at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Racism Is Still Alive, Folks appeared first on Law Street.

In today’s world of constant media consumption, it’s easy to form an opinion on just about everything. From sports, to religion, to Khloe Kardashian and Lamar Odom’s impending divorce, everyone wants their say. (I, for one, am very sad about the divorce.)

Close enough.

Even celebrities are getting in on the opinion smorgasbord fun! Some are genuine participants in the political sphere for better or for worse, like Alec Baldwin and Donald Trump. But sometimes their political statements go a little awry, which leads me to the theme of today’s list: 5 celebrities who cross over into the political arena…but fail miserably!

5. Jennifer Lopez Sings Happy Birthday to a Dictator 

Let’s start off with a fun dalliance into global politics! Jennifer Lopez, pop star extraordinaire, was in Turkmenistan for a show earlier this year. Now for those of you who don’t know, Turkmenistan is really, really bad at human rights. In fact, it’s run by dictator Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow, who is only leading the country because the former “President for Life” Saparmurat Niyazov died. Turkmenistan has been ranked as having the second worst Freedom conditions, behind only North Korea. So, based on all that information, you would think it would be inappropriate for J-Lo to sing Happy Birthday to Berdimuhamedow, right?

Wrong! She got the request while on stage in Turkmenistan, and her press team didn’t think to check into this Berdimuhamedow guy. She later apologized, but word to the wise: try to avoid singing to dictators. It’s frowned upon.

4. Justin Bieber on Voting

So this one is actually a couple years old, but it’s one of my favorites. The always poised and thoughtful Bieber was doing a Rolling Stone interview back in 2011. Now, to be fair, he was like what? 11? 12? (Edit: Google has informed me he would have been 16. I thought he was 16 now.) So he was 16, ok. That’s old enough to have some concept of politics. Especially if you’re a 16 year old with a huge following and the potential to be a role model to many young adults. So, when Justin Bieber was asked who he would support if he was old enough to vote, he stated with, “I’m not sure about the parties. But whatever they have in Korea, that’s bad.”

Hypocritical to use Miley Cyrus in a post cricizing J-Biebs? Yes. Perfect gif? Also, yes.

I don’t care if you’re 16. If the most intuitive political opinion you can give is that Korea (I’m just going to throw the kid a bone and assume he meant North Korea) is bad, something is wrong. Speaking of North Korea…

3. Dennis Rodman Hugs a Dictator

Dennis Rodman, well-known retired NBA player, visited North Korea in February 2013. The trip was sanctioned by the US, because it’s well known that North Korea’s crazy-in-chief, Kim Jong-Un, loves basketball. The trip was intended to be a goodwill cultural mission. The trip was not intended to end in a weird and uncomfortable bromance between Dennis Rodman and Kim Jong-Un.

He meant well I guess? But this is just so weird. If we shouldn’t sing Happy Birthday to dictators, we definitely shouldn’t EMBRACE dictators.

I’m sure Rodman thought he’d solved global political tensions with that hug.

2. Snooki’s Tanning Tax Analysis

I know, Jersey Shore is old news.  But a countdown of embarrassing political comments wouldn’t be complete without our dear, orange Snooki. In 2010, Snooki was angry. A 10 percent tax had been put on some tanning services.

Snooki angry.

Snooki spoke out about this unjustifiable, unwarranted, ridiculous tax on her lifestyle, stating “I don’t go tanning-tanning anymore because Obama put a 10 percent tax on tanning. McCain would never have put a 10 percent tax on tanning. Because he’s so pale, I feel like he’d probably want to be tan.” Now, technically speaking, there is a new tanning tax. The Affordable Care Act does levy a 10% tax on indoor tanning, similar to certain taxes on harmful substances, like cigarettes. But, Snooki, if one of your biggest political gripes is about having to pay a little more to go tanning, you’re probably not paying a ton of attention. And I think it’s important to point out that stating that McCain might want to go tanning might classify as insensitive, given that he did have pretty serious skin cancer a few years back. 

1. Kenneth Cole Is a Huge Jerk

Kenneth Cole is an American shoe and clothing designer who ranks number one on this list thanks to two awesomely ignorant tweets. In 2011, he made headlines with a tweet about the Egyptian revolution:

The tweet in question.

This year, he did it again with a slightly more subtle (though equally horrifying) reference to Syria.

This is, of course a reference to the “Boots on the ground” phrase used by President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry in regards to whether or not they may send in intervening ground troops. Because when people are dying the most appropriate response is to try to sell more shoes. You’re a winner, Kenneth.

So, a tip to all the readers out there: when you become rich and famous, remember to use a little common sens, tact, and a filter. Otherwise I will find you, and probably mock you.

—

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 [Adam Groffman 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 Celebrities Who Think They Know Politics…But Don’t appeared first on Law Street.