The robbery of Kim Kardashian in Paris in October is one step closer to being resolved after police arrested 17 suspects in the beginning of the week following a close review of security footage. On Thursday, four of them were charged. Investigators believe the robbery to be an inside job. Most of the suspects, three of whom are women, are professional criminals who have previously committed armed robbery or drug and counterfeit trafficking. A 40-year-old limousine driver from a company the Kardashians frequently use when visiting Paris was arrested, but he was subsequently released. However, his younger brother remains in custody, and police believe he is the one who told the experienced robbers about Kardashian’s whereabouts.

One of the four people charged on Thursday was a 63-year-old man referred to by the name “Yunice A.,” who was charged with armed robbery in an organized gang, kidnapping, and criminal association. He will stay in custody for the time being. Available information about the other suspects include that one 62-year-old and one 27-year-old are facing the same charges as Yunice A. A 44-year-old is charged with concealment/fencing by an organized gang and association with criminals. Six more suspects are still being questioned.

Reportedly, police were able to identify some DNA from the tape used to tie Kardashian, and also from a piece of jewelry that one of the thieves dropped in the street as they fled on rented bicycles. The DNA combined with the surveillance footage led to the arrest of the thieves.

Charges have been filed against 4 suspects involved in the Kim Kardashian Paris robbery. https://t.co/JxKuN9QUou pic.twitter.com/a228pTmPiR

— Complex (@Complex) January 13, 2017

According to the Daily Mail, French authorities won’t let an eyewitness who could testify against the robbers into France. An Algerian concierge at the place where Kardashian was staying, known as Abdulrahman, saw the robbers’ faces. After the robbery, he left France to go home and recover from the stress of being held at gunpoint. Now, the French government won’t issue a visa to let him back in and testify, even though he previously was a legal resident in France. His lawyer Henri de Beauregard said:

I don’t know if this is incompetence or just a bad decision. He is the best witness, he saw the criminals much longer than Miss Kardashian. I hope the police have a lot of solid proof and evidence, because if they don’t, it will be seen as a crazy decision.

The robbery happened when Kardashian was in Paris to attend Fashion Week in the beginning of October. Five men disguised as police officers entered the mansion she was staying in, had the concierge take them to Kardashian’s room and stole jewelry worth $10 million after holding her at gunpoint and tying her up in the bathroom. Among the stolen items was her 20-carat engagement ring, worth $4 million.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Four Charged in Kim Kardashian Paris Robbery Case appeared first on Law Street.

On Sunday night Kim Kardashian was robbed at gunpoint in her hotel room in Paris; she was there to attend Fashion Week. The robbers, who were wearing masks and were dressed as police officers, stole jewelry totaling $10 million.

Kardashian was staying at a nine-apartment mansion that is often frequented by celebrities like Madonna and Leonardo DiCaprio. Around 2:30 AM on Sunday, the concierge let a couple of men in. They then threatened him with a gun, handcuffed him, and made him take them to Kardashian’s apartment, where they tied her up in the bathroom while holding a gun to her head. After going through her jewelry, they left. Allegedly her stylist managed to alert the real police, who later found the night guard in a staircase with hands and feet bound.

Kim was shaken but physically okay, according to a statement from her spokeswoman. Her children were not in the apartment. She later left Paris on her private jet and flew home to New York.

On Sunday night, her husband Kanye West cut his show at Meadows Music and Arts Festival in New York short with the words “I’m sorry, family emergency, I have to stop the show.” Fans initially reacted with confusion and anger.

Here’s a photo of Kanye West’s show right before it ended. Like everyone was shock it just ended. No reason given, just “family emergency.” pic.twitter.com/y4Rfk5n3h9

— Frank Pallotta (@frankpallotta) October 3, 2016

Last week was not an easy one for Kim Kardashian West. She was the recipient of a prank by internet celebrity prankster Vitalii Sediuk, who tried to kiss her butt when she exited her car. Her bodyguard quickly wrestled him to the ground, but she said she wants to file a report and get a restraining order. Apparently Sediuk was protesting plastic surgery and wanted the Kardashians to promote a more natural look for the millions of young girls who look up to them.

As news of the robbery broke on Monday morning, the internet started reacting not with compassion, but with mockery.

Kim Kardashian gets robbed and the whole world is in an uproar.

Harambe was brutally murdered and the world was silent.

— ædonis | hotep (@lordaedonis) October 3, 2016

Luckily, tweets defending Kim later surfaced on social media, pointing out how bizarre it is to make fun of someone being robbed just because she’s a celebrity.

People making jokes about @KimKardashian tonight would do well to remember that she’s a mother,a daughter,a wife,a friend.Be nice or shut up

— James Corden (@JKCorden) October 3, 2016

Kinda loving @kanyewest for jumping off that stage for his wife… yes sir… love that. Family first.

— Jaime Primak (@JaimePrimak) October 3, 2016

Don’t make memes out of Kim Kardashian being robbed at gunpoint it really isn’t funny. One click and 2 kids could’ve been motherless

— Girls be like… (@girlhoodposts) October 3, 2016

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kim Kardashian Robbed at Gunpoint in Paris appeared first on Law Street.

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:

Breitbart Is Anti-Semitic?

Breitbart is coming under fire for… well, being Breitbart. After harboring scum like Milo Yiannopoulos, and the like, Breitbart just published what many are calling an “anti-semitic” attack on Washington Post reporter Anne Applebaum. The article is littered with criticisms of Applebaum that are hard to ignore:

Breitbart’s not racist. They’re just really worried this “Jewish… elitist” is controlling the global media with all her friends. pic.twitter.com/XqkdkpVPnX

— Alex Griswold (@HashtagGriswold) September 28, 2016

And apparently most of them are just outlandish accusations:

also, it contains a list of the journalists I supposedly “control,” many of whom I don’t know, and other made-up facts https://t.co/6d4SBCWpbz

— Anne Applebaum (@anneapplebaum) September 28, 2016

Should it really matter though? It’s not like Breitbart has the greatest reputation for reliable news.

via GIPHY

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: September 29, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Kim Kardashian is considering going to law school. No, this is not an Onion headline–the media personality told the magazine Wonderland that she’d like to go to law school at some point during the road. Kardashian said: “If things slow down and I had time, I really want to go to law school. Just something I can do in my older age.”

via GIPHY

Kardashian’s late father, Robert Kardashian Sr. was an accomplished lawyer, and served on the defense team for O.J. Simpson. He was recently portrayed by David Schwimmer in the “The People v O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story”; the Kardashians were also portrayed as children on the show. And Kim has expressed interest in law and crime before–in an interview earlier this year, she said that if she wasn’t famous she’d be a “forensic investigator.” She told Vogue Australia:

I would be a forensic investigator and live a normal life. I’m gonna be that annoying, pushy mom and say I want to live vicariously through my kids and have them be a forensic investigator.

There are a few hurdles that Kim would presumably have to cross in order to go to law school. She never went to college, and there are only a few law schools that accept people who don’t already have a Bachelor’s degree. For example, Western Michigan University-Cooley Law School does accept students who didn’t complete an undergraduate degree but do have a certain number of undergraduate credit hours under their belt.

So will Kim actually go for it? It doesn’t sound like she’s planning on it anytime soon, but we can keep an eye out.

via GIPHY

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 Law Schools: Would you Admit Kim Kardashian? appeared first on Law Street.

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:

Congressman Lee Zeldin Drags Kaepernick Into Terrorism Debate

People on Twitter are wondering why New York congressman Lee Zeldin thought it was appropriate to bring Colin Kaepernick into the whole New York, New Jersey bomber situation.

After the FBI apprehended Ahmad Khan Ramahi yesterday morning, Lee Zeldin posted this on Twitter:

Suspect in custody. You are welcome Colin Kaepernick.

— Lee Zeldin (@leezeldin) September 19, 2016

His tweet sparked some confused and disapproving responses:

@leezeldin If only Kaepernick had stood for the anthem these past two weeks, we could have caught the terrorist 3 hours sooner probably.

— Alex Katz (@Alex__Katz) September 19, 2016

1+1 = kumquat https://t.co/6psueTQz9r

— Shers (@aubrihshark) September 19, 2016

Just did my job that I get paid for. You’re welcome, Colin Kaepernick

— Margaret Don’t-@wood (@DavidUzumeri) September 19, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: September 20, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

The battle between Taylor Swift and Kanye West over his song “Famous” may become a legal one thanks to newly-leaked footage from West’s wife, Kim Kardashian West.

After Kim accused Swift of continuing to “play the victim” on Sunday night’s episode of “Keeping Up With The Kardashians,” she backed up her claims by finally leaking the videotaped telephone conversation between Kanye and Swift on Snapchat. The footage proves that not only did the “Bad Blood” singer  know about the song before its release, but she approved of its lyrics. However, Kimye may want to hold off celebrating, because that recorded phone call may actually be illegal.

But before we get to all that I’ll do my best to catch up all of you who are struggling to follow along because either (a) you don’t religiously follow all of the Kardashians on social media like me or (b) you somehow forgot about that awkward MTV VMAs seven years ago. Here’s a timeline of the drama:

• September 13, 2009: Feud begins after Kanye grabs the mic from Taylor during her MTV VMA acceptance speech for Best Female Video, declaring Beyonce’s “Single Ladies” should have won.
• 2010-2014: Kanye apologizes, then takes back said apology.
• August 30, 2015: Kanye apologizes for real this time after Taylor presents Kanye with Video Vanguard Award at the VMAs.
• February 11, 2016: Kanye releases a song titled “Famous,” in which he referenced the feud rapping: “For all my Southside n***as that know me best/I feel like me and Taylor might still have sex/Why? I made that bitch famous.”
• February 15, 2016: Taylor throws shade at Kanye during her Grammy acceptance speech for Album of the Year saying: “As the first woman to win Album of the Year at the Grammys twice, I want to say to all the young women out there: there are going to be people along the way who will try to undercut your success or take credit for your accomplishments or your fame.”
• February 17, 2016: Kanye flips out on Taylor’s “fake ass” backstage at SNL.
• June 16, 2016: Kim defends her husband in an interview for GQ, revealing that Kanye called Taylor before the song’s release and discussed it with her. Taylor “thought it was funny” and “gave her blessing.” Kim also claims the whole conversation is on tape thanks to Kanye’s videographers. Yet, in the same article a spokesperson for Taylor denies West’s claim, stating Kanye only called to ask Taylor to promote the song on her Twitter account. Taylor’s lawyers also apparently sent a letter demanding they destroy the footage.
• June 24, 2016: Kanye debuts the music video for “Famous,” which consists of a nude Kim and Kanye in bed, surrounded by nude replicas of several celebrities–with a topless Taylor on Kanye’s right.
• July 17, 2016: After venting about the drama on KUWTK, Kim takes to snapchat to release the footage of Kanye and Taylor’s phone conversation, proving the pair was telling the truth. #KimExposedTaylorParty starts trending on Twitter. Here’s the footage:

PART 1: Kanye calling Taylor Swift to tell her about the #FAMOUS lyrics. Courtesy of KKW. pic.twitter.com/TIiqxxzLUh

— TeamKanyeDaily (@TeamKanyeDaily) July 18, 2016

PART 2: Taylor agreeing to tell the media she was in on the #FAMOUS lyrics from the beginning. : KKW. pic.twitter.com/PbXUnGreas

— TeamKanyeDaily (@TeamKanyeDaily) July 18, 2016

• July 18, 2016: Swift responded to the videos with this note on Twitter:

That moment when Kanye West secretly records your phone call, then Kim posts it on the Internet. pic.twitter.com/4GJqdyykQu

— Taylor Swift (@taylorswift13) July 18, 2016

Now that you’re all caught up, here’s where the legality of the footage comes in. Did Kanye break the law by filming his conversation with Swift? It depends on the state.

Federal law “permits recording telephone calls and in-person conversations with the consent of at least one of the parties.” This is commonly referred to as “one-party consent.” However, some states require all parties to consent to the recording. These states include: California, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington.

This is where it gets tricky. It’s unclear if Kim and Kanye were in a New York (a one-party consent state) or California (a two-party consent state,) or if Taylor was in Tennessee (a one-party consent state) or somewhere else altogether. In the video Kanye references a Nashville number, but they could simply be talking about an area code.

If two parties are in two different states, the laws in either state, or even federal law, may apply–and California law is strict. Under the California Penal Code, a first-offense for illegal telephone recording can carry a fine of $2,500 or even imprisonment for up to one year.

The California Supreme Court also established a precedent in 2006, ruling in Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc. that if a caller in a one-party state records a conversation with someone in California, that one-party state caller is subject to the stricter of the laws and must have consent from all callers.

So in other words, it’s unclear whether or not Kanye could face face legal charges for recording the call, or if Kim could be on the hook for distributing the recording. It will be interesting to see whether or not Taylor’s team chooses to pursue legal action.

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 Did Kanye Break the Law By Recording Taylor Swift’s Phone Call? appeared first on Law Street.

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

Kim Kardashian Speaks Out Against Senates Decision on Gun Control

Last night, the Senate voted in opposition to strengthening gun control, specifically four amendments that could potentially limit individuals purchasing guns. Like many others, reality TV personality Kim K. took to Twitter to voice her concerns:

So sad! The senate voted against background checks being needed to buy guns. So terrorists on fbi’s wanted lists can legally still buy guns

— Kim Kardashian West (@KimKardashian) June 21, 2016

Oh & mentally ill people can buy guns without a background check too.

— Kim Kardashian West (@KimKardashian) June 21, 2016

The fact that anyone can so easily access guns is so scary & after all of the devastating loss the Senate should have not failed us!!!

— Kim Kardashian West (@KimKardashian) June 21, 2016

It is true the Senate failed to make a crucial decision on gun control, an issue that Americans are increasingly worried about. Perhaps we’ll have to wait until the next mass shooting…again. Until then…

@KimKardashian future First Lady

— . (@sIayallday) June 21, 2016

@KimKardashian Kim for senate 2017

— guylaine (@guylainecoco) June 21, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 21, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

People love to joke that the Kardashian/Jenner clan is taking over the world, but some in Iran have genuine concerns.

Iranian officials have accused the family’s top bread winner, Kim Kardashian, of being a secret agent. On an Iranian news program Sunday night, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s Organized Cyberspace Crimes Unit (OCCU) accused Kim of conspiring with Instagram to corrupt Iranian women with “un-Islamic photos.”

OCCU spokesman Mostafa Alizadeh explained that the reality star “targets” Muslim women with photos that are contradictory to an Islamic lifestyle:

They are targeting young people and women. Foreigners are behind it because it is targeting families. These schemes originate from around the Persian Gulf and England. When you draw the operational graph, you will see that it is a foreign operation. Ms. Kim Kardashian is a popular fashion model so Instagram’s CEO tells her, ‘make this native.’ There is no doubt that financial support is involved as well. We are taking this very seriously.

This comes just as eight women working as online models for social media platforms such as Instagram were arrested in Iran as part of the country’s larger crackdown on “un-Islamic” photos.

But now that I think about it, this is not the first time Kim K has been accused of espionage-like involvement. I decided to do some digging to see if Kim could in fact be a spy, and came to the conclusion…possibly? So, without further adieu:

Here’s Three Reasons why Kim Kardashian Could Actually be a Spy

1. Kim’s Favorite Television Shows are Very Suspicious

Once, when asked by a fan what TV shows she likes to watch, Kim answered, “I love investigating shows like ‘Dateline,’ ‘Forensic Files,’ [and] ‘I Survived…'” NBC’s “Dateline” regularly airs true crime stories, “Forensic Files” shows how scientists use forensic science to solve crimes, and “I Survived…” profiles people’s near death experiences.

I’m noticing a suspicious theme here.

2. Kim Loves Investigating Her Own Family

If you watch “Keeping Up With the Kardashians,” you’d know that Kim has a history of investigating her family and hiring private investigators. In an episode of the KUWTK’s spinoff “Kourtney & Kim Take Miami,” Kim is suspicious of Kourtney’s then-boyfriend Scott Disick, so she hires a P.I. to track him.

Watch her shady sleuthing in the clip below:

If she’d investigate someone she considers to be family, who’s to say she wouldn’t be down for investigating entire countries like….idk IRAN!

3. Tina Fey is Convinced There’s Something Amiss 

Tina Fey joked that the reality star was “made by Russian scientists to sabotage our athletes” in her comedic bestseller “Bossypants.”

I mean #NuffSaid. You may be on to something, Iranian officials. We’ll have to keep an eye out.

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 Iran Officials Think Kim Kardashian is a Secret Agent: Maybe They’re Right? appeared first on Law Street.

In an ironic development, the Kardashian sisters are now being accused of not enough self-promotion: Kourtney, Khloe, and Kim are being sued for over $180 million due to lack of marketing and promotion efforts for their “Kardashian Beauty” makeup line. In court filings obtained by Radar Online, the Plaintiff, Hillair Capital Management, LLC, alleges:

…in July 2014, whereby Hillair agreed to put up millions of dollars to help the Kardashians salvage their struggling ‘Kardashian Beauty’ makeup line after former distributor, Boldface, went belly up amidst legal and financial troubles. The essence of the parties’ bargain was that Hillair would put up millions of dollars to fund the continued distribution of the Kardashians’ line, and the Kardashians would continue to be the faces of the line and actively promote, market and support the line, while making certain concessions under their existing deal with Boldface.

The problem, Hillair alleges, is that the sisters did not uphold their end of the bargain: “the Kardashians wanted a better, more lucrative deal than they had struck with Hillair after the money to continue the line was already committed, and they used their ability to withhold their support of the line to attempt to force Hillair into a buyout of its interest.”

In return, Hillair is now demanding the return of the over $10 million it invested into the company, as well as up to $180 million in loss of value of equity interest.

This makeup line has been the cause of multiple legal headaches for the Kardashian sisters. The line was launched in 2012 under the name Khroma Beauty, but was accused of trademark infringement by two different companies: the Los Angeles-based Chroma Makeup, and a separate Florida-based company called Kroma Makeup. While the former was denied by courts, the second (Kroma with a K) was successful in forcing a temporary injunction to stop sales of the Kardashian’s brand for the duration of the trial. As a result, the company was finally forced to change its name to “Kardashian Beauty” in 2013.

The troubles only continued from there: the distributor of Kardashian Beauty, Boldface Licensing and Branding, began to experience financial troubles, which is where Hillair stepped in and agreed to invest. Now, the management company is alleging that its deal specified that the Kardashians would continue the promotions they had been working on under their previous deal with Boldface, which they allegedly did not do.

Another day, another Kardashian lawsuit we’re “keeping up with.”

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 Kardashians Sued for Not Promoting Makeup Line appeared first on Law Street.

The Kardashians. Whether you love to hate them, or hate to love them, one thing is for sure–you just can’t stop talking about them. But if you’re tall, beautiful, and coincidentally a model walking in Kanye West’s New York Fashion Week (NYFW) show you might want to hold off on any K-clan gossiping you have planned, because it could end up being a $10 million mistake.

According to the Mirror, the 38-year-old rapper/designer/T-Swift interrupter required all models in his Yeezy Season 2 show to sign non-disclosure agreements effectively banning them from talking about him, Kim, or any other member of the Kardashian-West family.

Kanye isn’t playing games with Yeezy Season 2: http://t.co/ZHPrh9Aoxo pic.twitter.com/9LD3tRWzsg

— Complex Style (@ComplexStyle) September 16, 2015

According to one Mirror source,

Kanye’s hacked off some really high-profile models by asking them to sign the agreement, particularly because it stated that he could sue them for up to $10 million if they spoke out about him.

Some of the models flat out refused, saying they’d rather not be associated with him and his “media frenzy.” Others reluctantly signed.

This isn’t the first time West or the Kardashians have required their “people” to sign non-disclosure agreements. Take Kim and Kanye’s $12 million Italian wedding, for example. Not wanting to ruin their E! wedding special, all guests in attendance were obligated to sign confidentiality agreements and have their phones confiscated in order to keep their nuptials private and out of the media’s hands.

However, the models weren’t the only ones pissed at West over his NYFW antics–some of his fellow designers, specifically Anna Bowen, were too. Earlier that week Bowen blasted West, calling him “unethical” for forcing her to reschedule her show after he added his last minute to the packed runway schedule. West slated his buzzworthy presentation for the same time as Bowen’s, which pressured her into moving her show or risk no one showing up.

She told Women’s Wear Daily,

Kanye knows he is a media sensation and it is just not ethical to do this. It’s like we are David and he is Goliath. […]

We have put our heart and soul into our show, and should not be stepped on like this. Our show date has been scheduled for months and we have to move our date, which is a logistical nightmare.

So in other words Kanye effectively pissed off NYFW designers and models in one fell swoop. Who knows, the confidentiality agreements may just be a scare tactic. Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised if this was just one big tactfully planned publicity stunt by Ye’s camp aimed to bring more eyes to his last minute submission. Conspiracy theories aside, I will admit that it is slightly odd to see a family that has amassed so much of their wealth by living in the public eye try to retain anything private.

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 Kanye Threatens to Sue Models if They Talk About Him or Kim During NYFW appeared first on Law Street.

Last night’s MTV Video Music Awards went much like you’d expect. Miley attempted to shock viewers with nipple skimming outfits and weed references, none of the jokes were funny, Taylor Swift won most of the awards, and Kanye managed to steal the show–but this time without stealing a mic from Swift.

During a bizarre 11-minute-long acceptance speech for the Michael Jackson Video Vanguard Award, Yeezy talked about everything from how fatherhood changed him to fighting for artists…and a possible presidential run in 2020?

After rambling about “dying for the art” and “millennials’ new mentality” West said,

I don’t know what I finna lose after this. It don’t matter, though; It’s not about me. It’s about ideas. New ideas. People with ideas. People who believe in truth.

And yes, as you probably could’ve guessed by this moment, I have decided in 2020 to run for president.

**[Literally Drops Mic]**

Kanye hasn’t made it clear whether or not he was joking about the potential run, but he did make the announcement after admitting he “rolled up a little something” to knock the edge off before the show.

Watch Kanye’s full speech below:

Regardless of how serious he was, the Kardashian sisters were quick to jump on the “Kanye for President” bandwagon, posting their support on social media.

A photo posted by King Kylie (@kyliejenner) on Aug 30, 2015 at 8:00pm PDT

Mr West!!! pic.twitter.com/NuLlx9MnYT — Khloé (@khloekardashian) August 31, 2015

But Kourtney’s tweet was hands down the best.

pic.twitter.com/OdPQ9JlfYD — Kourtney Kardashian (@kourtneykardash) August 31, 2015

For those of you wondering why 2020, it may be because he and his wife have already endorsed their candidate for 2016.

I got my selfie!!! I really loved hearing her speak & hearing her goals for our country! #HillaryForPresident pic.twitter.com/zGpdcGSZBD — Kim Kardashian West (@KimKardashian) August 7, 2015

But if for some reason he did choose to run this year, I bet Deez Nuts would happily sign on to be his running mate!

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 Is Kanye West Really Running For President? appeared first on Law Street.

Last week at Law Street, our top stories included a look at the top 10 quotes from the first Republican presidential primary debate, Kim K’s latest legal troubles, and some familiar faces running for political office. ICYMI, check out Law Street’s top stories of the week.

#1 Top 10 Quotes from the First Presidential Debate

On Thursday night, the top ten Republican presidential candidates gathered in Cleveland, Ohio to duke it out on stage for the GOP nomination during the first primary debate of the year. Candidates were asked questions on a wide range of topics, from what they believe is the best approach to combat ISIL in the Middle East, to whether or not God has influenced their decisions to run for President. Read the full article here.

#2 Kim Kardashian’s Selfie Comes with an FDA Warning

Even though the world very well may be reaching its breaking point with how much Kardashian news coverage it can take, recent legal trouble between the family’s top breadwinner Kim Kardashian West and the Food and Drug Administration has warranted keeping the reality stars in the spotlight. Read the full article here.

#3 Celebrities Running for Office: Familiar Faces in the 2016 Races

Donald Trump is certainly dominating the news when it comes to the race for the 2016 Republican presidential primary. But “The Donald” didn’t get his start as a politician–he was a business mogul and reality television star before anyone ever saw him on a presidential poll. While that may seem weird to some, celebrities who have gotten famous through other means are consistently trying to join the political ranks. Here are five other celebrities running for office in 2016–and I’m betting they’re just the tip of the iceberg. Read the full article here.

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 ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Even though the world very well may be reaching its breaking point with how much Kardashian news coverage it can take, recent legal trouble between the family’s top breadwinner Kim Kardashian West and the Food and Drug Administration has warranted keeping the reality stars in the spotlight.

Last week Kardashian West posted a selfie on Instagram of herself holding a prescription bottle of Diclegis, made by the pharmaceutical company Duchesnay USA. The pregnant celeb credited the drug with helping her manage her bouts of morning sickness with baby number two.

FDA tells @KimKardashian she’s doing it wrong http://t.co/DVHXBLes08 pic.twitter.com/wQWZKkOLlW

— Halle Tecco (@halletecco) August 12, 2015

The post, which has since been deleted, read:

I tried changing things about my lifestyle, like my diet, but nothing helped, so I talked to my doctor. He prescribed me #Diclegis, and I felt a lot better and most importantly, it’s been studied and there was no increased risk to the baby.

Kim is no stranger to social media product promotions; she’s utilized her personal accounts to sell everything from teeth whiteners to tennis shoes to her 42 million followers on Instagram and 25 million on Facebook. But, the so-called “selfie queen” failed to cover her bases with her latest venture.

Although the post linked to the drug’s website and its safety information, FDA Division Director for the Office of Prescription Drug Promotion Robert Dean says it wasn’t enough. In his warning letter dated August 7, Dean writes, “the social media post is false or misleading in that it presents efficacy claims for DICLEGIS, but fails to communicate any risk information associated with its use and it omits material facts.” He also points out that the post neglected to mention that the drug has not been studied in women with hyperemesis gravidarum, a complication of pregnancy characterized by uncontrollable nausea, vomiting, and dehydration.

The confusion over the side effect omission boils down to the drug’s classification. Diclegis, is labeled under the pregnancy category A, which means it has failed to demonstrate a risk to the fetus in the first trimester of pregnancy. Despite this, disclosing risks of the drug during pregnancy are still required in labeling and promotions.

Forbes explains further writing,

Incidentally, such pregnancy classifications were eliminated by FDA last month and companies are now required to give prescribers more precise safety details on a drug’s fetal and maternal risk profile because the old classification was “often misinterpreted and misused in that prescribing decisions were being made based on the pregnancy category, rather than an understanding of the underlying information that informed the assignment of the pregnancy category.

According to the drug’s website, Diclegis’ most common side effect is drowsiness and therefore should not be combined with alcohol, certain depressants and pain medications, and sleeping aides. Women are also encouraged not to drive, use heavy machinery, or “engage in other activities that need your full attention” while taking the drug.

In response to the letter, Duchesnay spokeswoman Laney Landsman said the company is working very hard to take quick action and is working out a plan to submit to the FDA. The letter warned that “failure to correct the violations discussed may result in FDA regulatory action, including seizure or injunction, without further notice.” It’s unclear if Kim will have to forfeit her compensation for the ad since it has been deleted, but it’s safe to say the reality star will likely be “keeping up with” the FDA’s requirements.

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 Kim Kardashian’s Selfie Comes With an FDA Warning appeared first on Law Street.

Custody battles are often an issue among spouses who are not able to work out their personal differences for the sake of their children. Magazines today often depict celebrities as stars who are “just like us,” showing photos of them pumping their own gas, tanning in the park, or buying groceries at Whole Foods. So, just like us, celebrities also deal with intense and drawn out custody battles. Kelly Rutherford, better known as Lily van der Woodson on “Gossip Girl,” has been dealing with a custody battle regarding her two children, Hermés Giersch and Helena Giersch, with ex-husband Daniel Giersch since their divorce in 2008. This drawn out battle sheds a light on the issues that celebrities’ children face when their parents are in the news.

On May 22, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mark Juhas ruled that Rutherford’s son and daughter be brought back to the United States from Monaco for a June 15 custody hearing, where she was to be temporarily granted sole custody. Her ex-husband’s lawyer argues that because the children are residents of Monaco, California does not have jurisdiction over the children. There has been widespread speculation that Rutherford made fraudulent statements and lied to receive custody of the children. It has now been ruled that the children will not return until just  before June 15, when the Los Angeles and Monaco judges will discuss the situation at a custody hearing. Rutherford’s lawyer says that there is still hope for Rutherford, since this decision does not grant Monaco jurisdiction.

Fighting for what she claims are the basic human rights of her children, Rutherford has started a Children’s Justice Campaign, including Youtube videos with updates on the status of her children, stating,
“American children should not be forced to leave their own country. My children were born here, they have a right to live here, just like the millions of children who were born in this county.”

https://t.co/jRv3MsQlH6 https://t.co/zqzncYk0Er

— Kelly Rutherford (@KellyRutherford) March 15, 2015

Rutherford hopes the court is able to come to a decision soon, claiming that she has spent everything she’s ever worked for on legal fees to get her children back. In December of 2008, Rutherford filed for divorce from her husband, Daniel Giersch, while pregnant with their second child. By August of 2009, the two were able to reach a temporary settlement of joint legal and physical custody, which lasted until April 2010. In April 2012, Giersch’s American visa was revoked after substantial evidence, including terrorist acts, fraud, and his involvement in drug and weapon dealings in South America, were discovered to deport him. The removal of his visa forced Giersch to be permanently removed from the United States, and because of this, he took up residence in Monaco. This resulted in the order by a California judge for the children to live in France with their father since he is unable to enter the U.S. Rutherford, however, claims that there is no official evidence to support Giersch’s claims of being denied access into the U.S. Giersch filed court papers in Monaco, causing the children to be declared habitual residents, subject solely to Monaco law. Both parties are still waiting for the June 15 court hearing.

But one thing to keep in mind is that given that Kelly Rutherford is a well-known celebrity who starred in television hits like “Melrose Place” and “Gossip Girl,” once the court makes a decision, the battle itself will have long residual effects. Years from now when her children are a little bit older and are able to understand the years of back and forth between their parents, they’ll be able to simply Google information on their custody battle.

Rutherford has not been the only celebrity to have her children deal with the issues that come with being in the lime light, and some are fighting back. In 2014, Kristen Bell and her husband Dax Shepard began a “no kids” policy to get news outlets to stop sharing, buying, or posting photos of celebrities’ children without consent. The movement nicknamed the photographers “pedorazzi,” and this action is changing the paparazzi culture. Bell has stated.

No parent should feel like their child is being taken advantage of because of the choices they made on their career paths.

In agreement with Bell, I fully believe celebrities have the right to a private lifestyle, but there is contradictory behavior that comes from other stars that makes it difficult for celebrities to request privacy. Take Kim Kardashian for example–her daughter is regularly talked about on social media for her extravagant outfits, has been taken to fashion shows, and has even been on the family’s reality television show, all before the age of three years old. To celebrities, privacy has become more of a request then a right. When Kardashian’s child gets older, she will be able to find countless photos of herself at six months old hiding under a blanket. News outlets exploit celebrities and their children to such an extent that their entire lives can be accessed at the tap of a mouse pad. This American obsession with celebrities is exactly how I was able to gain such detailed information on the history of Rutherford’s and Giersch’s custody battle.

Kelly Rutherford has been dealing with the consequences of her decision to part ways with Giersch since before the birth of her now five year old daughter. They’ve had years of constant custody battles under a very public microscope–eventually this nightmare has to end.

Angel Idowu

Angel Idowu is a member of the Beloit College Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Angel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Should Celebrity Custody Battles Put Children in the Limelight? appeared first on Law Street.

In recent weeks, celebrity Chelsea Handler has created quite a virtual stir by posting revealing photographs of herself on the popular photo-sharing app Instagram, which were subsequently taken down for violating the company’s mature content policy.

Handler’s photos being removed by the site’s admin would seem to be a cut-and-dried case–the second item on Instagram’s Basic Terms is “You may not post violent, nude, partially nude . . . pornographic or sexually suggestive photos or other content via the Service.”

However, the star’s next move was to point out the gender politics at play because men’s nipples are acceptable to show on the site. Here’s a quick rundown of Handler’s Instagram drama that aired on CNN.

It’s worth noting that in the video, they showed a screenshot of the removed post that Handler tweeted, as Twitter’s guidelines are less strict. This ability to reach more than five million Twitter followers without censorship is probably why this specific case of Instagram content removal has garnered so much attention.

And Chelsea Handler isn’t the only famous face to come into conflict with Instagram’s restrictions.

Singer Rihanna’s account was mistakenly shut down after posting photos from a cover shoot for Lui magazine, prompting the fed-up star to leave the site altogether. Actor Scout Willis was banned from the site after posting a photo of a jacket she designed that depicted the torsos of two topless women. Grace Coddington, Creative Director for Vogue, was banned in May for posting a line drawing of herself topless.

Coddington’s image has since been restored to her again-functional Instagram account.

The sheer variety of reasons relating to nudity and the female nipple that people have been banned from Instagram, even temporarily, has sparked conversation among those who would follow Willis’ lead and #FreeTheNipple, or more specifically, erase the stigma that makes the female nipple something to be hidden or censored while males can go shirtless in public or in the media without reproach.

Willis then took her protest to the streets by walking around topless, arguing the fact that something legal in New York City isn’t allowed on Instagram. Newsy explains in the video below.

Willis went on to explain for herself in an article for XOJane, in which she remarks that this censorship doesn’t just apply to celebrities, though their cases are the most obvious examples. She writes, “My situation was in no way unique; women are regularly kicked off Instagram for posting photos with any portion of the areola exposed, while photos sans nipple–degrading as they might be–remain unchallenged.“

In light of the site’s controversy, should nudity continue to be banned on Instagram?

What’s the Argument for Enforcing the Guidelines?

Ultimately, Instagram has laid out its policies in black and white in its ever-ignored Terms and Conditions section, including its right to “modify or terminate the Service or your access to the Service for any reason, without notice, at any time…” Those who run Instagram have the power and the prerogative to dictate how the site is to be utilized by users.

And that’s not to say there’s no reasoning behind Instagram’s guidelines pertaining to nudity and inappropriate content.

In an age where Internet trolls can hide behind their keyboards, the rules can be the difference between a safe space for users and a cyber-bully’s haven. This is especially true for celebrities, whose lives are constantly up for scrutiny in the media and who are often subjected to online harassment, threats, and criticism.

Instagram CEO Kevin Systrom defended the company’s policies in an interview with BBC Newsbeat, saying, “Our goal is really to make sure that Instagram, whether you’re a celebrity or not, is a safe place, and that the content that gets posted is something that’s appropriate for teens and also for adults.”

While only 11 percent of teens had Instagram in 2012, according to Pew Research, this is a demographic the company would be foolish to ignore. By censoring nudity on the site, Instagram is ensuring it won’t be a social media outlet that parents should fear, as 62 percent of parents worry about the kind of content available to their children on the Internet.

The idea of what’s appropriate for viewing can also be applied on a global scale, as in the past few years Instagram has achieved growing success worldwide. According to the site, upward of 65 percent of users are outside the U.S. With a variety of users, creating a standard to minimize discomfort for those in areas that are more conservative is a good way to make sure Instagram can flourish there uninhibited by social restraint.

Against the Guidelines

If a person is offended by the site’s content, he or she could simply unfollow the offending user. For example, if a user is conservative for religious, social, or personal reasons, it might not be the best idea to follow Chelsea Handler, as she is known for her brash and pulls-no-punches comedy.

And even under the nudity guidelines, unfollowing still might be necessary because what is deemed inappropriate by the site’s admin (and by those who flag photos for review because of inappropriate content) seems arbitrary and ambiguous. Take, for example, the cover shoot that caused problems between Rihanna and Instagram. She was featured relaxing in what one assumes is a chair on a beach you can’t see in a hat and pink bikini bottoms. Her nipples are clearly shown.

However, there’s been another photo shoot recently, and it’s caused a lot of buzz–Kim Kardashian posed nude for Paper Magazine. Its photos have been shown across media platforms (sometimes with censoring, sometimes without), including on the star’s Instagram.

Kardashian wasn’t banned, even temporarily, and the content has not been removed. There are no female nipples involved, but there is certainly nudity.

One might question if there were an exception because the photo shoot could be considered art or fashion, but recalling Rihanna’s magazine cover, Scout Willis’ jacket, and Grace Coddington’s drawing invalidates that theory.

Even within Handler’s own account there is ambiguity, but again it comes down to the female nipple as opposed to nudity in general. In one photo that has gone uncontested, Handler is sitting wearing only underwear, but it is taken from an angle that obscures her breasts. In another photo, her naked butt is fully visible and shown side by side with the Kim Kardashian photo above. In the caption, Handler challenges the site with, “Your move, Instagram.”

While they are a central focus for celebrities taking a stand, nipples aren’t the only source of ambiguity on the site, though. Earlier this year, blogger Meghan Tonjes posted a photo of her underwear-clad butt on her Instagram as a statement of body positivity with the hashtag #honormycurves.

Given that her photo is not unique on a site where butt selfies are, indeed, a thing, Tonjes believes her photo was flagged for inappropriate content because of her plus-sized body type. This experience led Tonjes to launch a body positivity campaign on Instagram and YouTube, beginning with the response video included below. In her response, Tonjes shows a variety of photos that haven’t been removed from Instagram that look no different (or, debatably, even more inappropriate) than those images that have been taken down.

[Note: The video automatically skips to around the six-minute mark, but she begins explaining her situation around 55 seconds in.]

Instagram eventually restored the photo to Tonjes’ account with an apology, but not before she could expose some very blatant double standards in the admin’s judgment, as well as the judgment of those who flag photos for inappropriate content because of personal discomfort rather than an overarching problem. Tonjes also points out that there is no appeal process for when content is removed in which a user can defend themselves or their photos.

Conclusion

It is clear that Instagram has some unhappy users, some of whom have decided to terminate their accounts altogether. Should the site acquiesce, which would placate some users and potentially draw in new ones, and risk losing some of their more conservative following?

One potential alternative would be to find a more fair way to enforce the rules the site clearly wants to keep, so those whose photos are removed feel less targeted and alienated. It seems the problem isn’t in the use of guidelines per se, but is rather in the vague nature of the terminology “inappropriate content” and what exactly is considered “nudity” or “partial nudity.” If these terms were clearly defined, the company would have a much more solid argument for enforcing their Terms and Conditions.

Or the site could continue unchanged because ultimately the business has been expanding regardless of a little outrage.

Resources

Primary

Instagram: Instagram Terms of Use

Instagram: Press Page

Pew: Teens, Social Media, and Privacy

Pew: Teenage Life Online

XoJane: I am Scout Willis And This Is The Only Thing I Have To Say About Walking Topless Down The Streets of New York Last Week

Additional 

BET: Rihanna’s Instagram Account ‘Briefly Disabled’

Independent: Instagram Defends Nudity Rules After Scout Willis ‘Nipple Ban’ Topless Protest

Independent: Grace Coddington Banned From Instagram for Posting Topless Line Cartoon

Independent: Scout Willis Topless Instagram Protest

BBC: Instagram Defends Nudity Rules After ‘Nipple Ban’ Protest

Buzzfeed: This Woman’s Butt Selfie Was Banned From Instagram, So She Fought Back

Kelsey Kennedy

Kelsey Kennedy is a freelance editor with degrees in Magazine Journalism and Performance Theatre from the University of Missouri, Columbia (MIZ!). When she isn’t out exploring New York, she loves getting far too invested in characters on the page, stage, and screen. She ultimately wants to make a difference in the world and surround herself with creative people. Contact Kelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Instagram Nudity Problem: What’s the App to Do? appeared first on Law Street.