Sophie Hall was out with a group of friends at a night club in London in early April. It was 1 a.m. and they were still having fun before she noticed a fight breaking out next to her. Then she became overwhelmed by the smell of petrol and her face felt like it was on fire. The next thing she could remember was being stripped of her clothes and transported to the hospital for treatment for an acid attack.

Sophie was one of twenty people who were victims of the acid attack at the Mangle nightclub. The attack was not an isolated incident, but part of the larger epidemic of gang- and drug-related acid attacks that have increased in London in recent years.

According to data from the London police released in March, acid attacks from 2015-2016 increased by 74 percent. There has been a 30 percent rise in England overall. The problem has gotten so serious that London police officers have been issued acid treatment kits to allow officers to give immediate on-scene treatment to victims.

Acid attack epidemics are nothing new for the city. During the Victorian era it was common for women to throw corrosive acid on men who had “crossed them in love” as revenge. However, in the UK today most corrosive acid attacks involve men. Gang wars are believed to be the primary cause.

There are a variety of reasons why acid attacks may be popular for gang members. For example, there’s the relative cheapness of purchasing and concealing the substance. A liter of 95 percent sulfuric acid only costs £6.50 (about $8.50) and can be easily concealed from police. Furthermore the rise in acid attacks also coincides with efforts by lawmakers to deter possession of knives and guns.

Simon Harding, a Criminologist at Middlesex University, believes that the frequency of acid attacks has risen because they’re more difficult to prosecute and see more lenient repercussions, pointing out: “If you throw [acid] in someone’s face, it’s going to affect their eyes and eyesight so you have a high chance of getting away with it.” He went on to say: “Acid is likely to attract a ‘[Grievous Bodily Harm] with intent’ charge while using a knife is more likely to lead to the attacker being charged with attempted murder.”

In recent weeks, acid was used to target food delivery workers for popular services such as UberEats and Deliveroo. Jabed Hussain, 32, was one of five delivery bikers who were attacked during a 90-minute acid attack spree on July 16 in East London. In response, Hussain and other busy drivers blocked a central street in London during rush hour to protest the lack of safety. Hussain told reporters: “I’m just shocked, using acid to steal a bike? What’s a bike worth? My life is worth more than that.”

Representatives from the British government are currently meeting with police officers and the office of Home Secretary to discuss banning some kinds of acid, but have encountered difficulties because variations of the chemical are found in household goods. One MP, Stephen Timms, has recommended making it illegal to carry such noxious chemicals without justification. Violating that law would lead to penalties more on par with people caught with guns or knives. But while it may deter the number of acid attacks, it could inspire criminals to search for new, more dangerous weapons to use.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post What You Need to Know About the Rise of Acid Attacks in London appeared first on Law Street.

Need to fill out legal forms but can’t afford a human lawyer? Well, there’s an app for that. DoNotPay, a chatbot that has been dubbed “The World’s First Robot Lawyer,” provides free legal aid to users on issues ranging from appealing parking tickets to landlord disputes. Don’t expect the robot lawyer to represent you in court any time soon, but it can arm you with some of the tools and knowledge to deal with your legal case.

The artificial intelligence asks the user a series of questions about their legal issue. Then, after learning about the user’s personal situation, the AI can help fill out necessary legal forms or provide links to other resources. Joshua Browder, the founder and CEO of DoNotPay, launched the bot in 2015 to help people appeal their parking tickets. According to The Telegraph, DoNotPay has helped beat an estimated 375,000 parking tickets worth around $10 million since its launch. But the bot hasn’t stopped there.

DoNotPay started out in London and was programmed with New York City laws soon after. Since the bot first went live two years ago, it has expanded its reach to the rest of the United Kingdom and United States and will be able to assist people with 1,000 areas of law. A Facebook Messenger portion of the app can even help refugees complete immigration applications for the U.S. and Canada, and apply for asylum support in the U.K.

Browder, who was named on multiple Forbes 30 Under 30 lists for Europe for 2017, hopes DoNotPay will provide better access to legal resources for lower income individuals. The 20-year-old Stanford student told VentureBeat that DoNotPay started as a tool to fight his own parking tickets, but ended up revealing to him “how lawyers are exploiting human misery.”

“From discrimination in Silicon Valley to the tragedy in London with an apartment building catching fire, it seems the only people benefitting from injustice are a handful of lawyers,” Browder said. “I hope that DoNotPay, by helping with these issues and many more, will ultimately give everyone the same legal power as the richest in society.”

With tools like DoNotPay, people may not have to pay a hefty price for a lawyer to help them fill out legal paperwork. But for more complex cases, a human touch might still be the better way to go.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Free Chatbot Lawyer Makes Legal Aid More Accessible 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:

Brzezinski and Scarborough Speak Out About Trump Feud

President Donald Trump faced bipartisan criticism after launching a Twitter attack yesterday on the hosts of “Morning Joe,” Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski. Many Republicans have expressed disappointment and embarrassment that the president would use such derogatory language. “I see it as embarrassing to our country,” said Maine Senator Susan Collins. It points to the problematic view he has of women, according to Republican pollster Christine Matthews, who spoke to the New York Times. But Sarah Huckabee Sanders defended the president’s words as “fighting fire with fire” and said they were appropriate.

Please just stop. This isn’t normal and it’s beneath the dignity of your office.

— Ben Sasse (@BenSasse) June 29, 2017

This morning, Scarborough and Brzezinski said that officials from the White House called them and said that the National Enquirer, whose owner is a friend of Trump, would run a hit piece on them. According to Scarborough and Brzezinski, Trump would shut down the story if he apologized to them. The couple also said reporters from the Enquirer have been calling Brzezinski’s children and friends.

Here’s the clip:

This is a chilling story. https://t.co/HYJgBnajOy via @Morning_Joe https://t.co/6UCEHzfOET

— Bradd Jaffy (@BraddJaffy) June 30, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 30, 2017 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:

12 Arrested After London Terror Attack

On Saturday evening, Britain suffered its third terrorist attack in just a few months. This time, a van drove into a crowd of people on the London Bridge. Then, three men jumped out and started stabbing people at the nearby Borough Market. Seven people died and at least 50 were injured. Police shot and killed the three attackers. A day after the attack, Islamic State took responsibility. Yesterday, 12 people were arrested in connection with the attack and this morning, police raided two addresses in East London. Now a lot of people are questioning Britain’s counterterrorism capabilities, and many are criticizing Prime Minister Theresa May for not doing enough. The latest tragedy comes only a few days before Britain holds its general election on Thursday.

The President is taking the London Mayor’s comments out of context to attack him—just days after his city experienced a terror attack. https://t.co/IW2CHewKCz

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) June 5, 2017

President Donald Trump condemned the attack on Twitter, but also mocked London’s Mayor Sadiq Khan, further straining the relationship between the two countries. He also pointed to Saturday’s attack as justification for his travel ban, which is currently held up in court. His attack on the mayor was internationally criticized, and several Democrats have slammed the idea of a travel ban in the wake of the attack.

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 5, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

What You Need to Know About Devin Nunes, the FBI, and Russia

Yesterday, House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) shocked everyone by claiming that President Donald Trump might have been under surveillance after all. He said that he had been given reports that showed that intelligence agencies had intercepted communications of Trump and his associates. But he conceded that those communications were picked up incidentally by intelligence agencies and that Trump was not the primary target. Nunes then chose to brief Trump and talk to the media before informing his Democratic counterpart, California Congressman Adam Schiff.

Within minutes of #DevinNunes‘s stunt, it was clear he had torpedoed his reputation and that of his committee. That assessment still holds.

— Peter Daou (@peterdaou) March 23, 2017

It’s all very confusing–Nunes said that the information appeared to be part of lawful collections of foreign intel, but that he was still “alarmed.” And he was pretty severely criticized for immediately briefing Trump on the matter, given that he’s also tasked with investigating the president. Nunes defended his decision by saying that the information he told Trump had nothing to do with Russia.

Then, late last night, U.S. officials said that the FBI does have information that indicates that Trump’s associates may have communicated with Russian officials to release information that would damage Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Accusations have now been levied that Nunes only made the surveillance comments to deflect attention from these more concerning claims. Democrats, and some Republicans, are pretty outraged and are calling for an independent investigation.

The idea that Devin Nunes will investigate Trump/Russia is a farce. It’s time for a real, independent, transparent inquiry.

— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) March 23, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: March 23, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Update 2/23/2017: Despite earlier reports, Abu Izzadeen was not the attacker. Izzadeen is still in prison on unrelated matters. The identity of the attacker is still unknown. 

It’s unclear if it was the same car, but moments later, witnesses said a vehicle rammed the gates of Parliament. It was reported that the driver got out and stabbed a police officer. Witnesses said the officer was still moving when the assailant took off running, as other police officers shouted at him to stop. When he didn’t comply, several shots rang out and the attacker was killed.

Inside the building, the House of Commons was meeting; everyone was instructed to remain inside. Prime Minister Theresa May was quickly reported as unharmed. Witnesses outside described the situation as confused and panicked, with people running in all directions and officers giving contradictory orders.

Emergency services treat the injured outside Parliament in London.

Police are treating the Westminster attack as a “terrorist incident.” pic.twitter.com/XZ4Xioh8JK

— AJ+ (@ajplus) March 22, 2017

What made the incident even more haunting is that it occurred on the anniversary of the suicide bombings in Brussels that killed more than 30 people and injured at least 260. London has recently been spared from terror attacks–the last major attack in the city was the 2005 subway bombings that killed 52 people and injured more than 700. Now, London joins the list of European capitals that have recently been targets of terrorism. And there are similarities between some of the recent attacks–a vehicle was used as a weapon just like in France, Germany and Israel.

Eyewitnesses describe a chaotic scene after London terror attack: “I just can’t believe what I just saw.” https://t.co/EuQPjRFizI pic.twitter.com/SMzX6Gp9cf

— ABC News (@ABC) March 22, 2017

According to the Metropolitan Police in London, a “full counter terrorism investigation is already underway.” Police asked people to stay away from public areas in central London and to report any suspicious activities. Police also urged people to send in photos they took of the attacks. The head of counter terrorism, Mark Rowley, confirmed that four people are dead. “That includes the police officer that was protecting parliament and one man believed to be the attacker who was shot by a police firearms officer,” he said.

Four dead and at least 20 people injured in London terror attack, Metropolitan Police confirm pic.twitter.com/rXXqMU8Q36

— Sky News (@SkyNews) March 22, 2017

Some of the injured victims were a woman who either fell or jumped into the River Thames when the car crashed into the people on the bridge, and a group of visiting French students. Foreign Office minister Tobias Ellwood tried to revive the stabbed police officer outside of the parliament, but was unsuccessful. Lawmakers inside the House of Commons stayed on lockdown for two hours while police searched the whole building for any additional threats.

Andrew Bone was on a bus that was stopped on the bridge after the car had rammed into people and said, “I am of the generation who remembers I.R.A. bombs in London during The Troubles,” referring to the conflicts in Northern Ireland that lasted from 1968 to 1998. “We are not indifferent, but police have reacted with calm. I saw no panic.”

By Wednesday afternoon, police said the the attacker was Abu Izzadeen, who was born in London as Trevor Brooks. He was well known by authorities for his links to Islamic terrorism and had been to prison for funding, inciting, and praising terror acts. Reportedly he called for the killing of police officers and said he saw members of Parliament as infidels.

My thoughts are with the victims of the Westminster attack. Europe stands firm with the UK against terror and ready to help.

— Donald Tusk (@eucopresident) March 22, 2017

World leaders expressed their solidarity with London on Twitter, although President Donald Trump has yet to make a statement. The NYPD increased security at some high-profile locations around New York City, like the British Consulate, United Nations Mission, and Grand Central Terminal.

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 London Terror Attack: Four Dead After Assailant Drives into Crowd 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:

George W. Bush Disses Trump, Defends the Media

In his first interview since President Donald Trump took office, former president George W. Bush spoke out against the new president yesterday and criticized many of his recent statements. He said that a free media is “indispensable to democracy.” Referencing Trump’s recent comments that the media is the “enemy of the people,” Bush clearly disagreed. He said that power can be addictive and corrosive, and that we need the media to “hold people like me to account.” Some were surprised that they wholeheartedly agreed with Bush, while others pointed out the hypocrisy of applauding Bush after years of criticizing him:

2005: George W Bush is a pillaging, torturing war criminal who let a city drown

2017: I may have disagreed with Bush but he was A Good Man

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) February 27, 2017

Bush also said that we need to find out more about Trump’s alleged ties to Russia, and that he doesn’t exactly agree with the harsh immigration rules. “I am for an immigration policy that is welcoming and upholds the law,” he said. He also pointed out that he doesn’t “like the racism and I don’t like the name-calling and I don’t like the people feeling alienated.”

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: February 28, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

In May 2016, Nicola Thorp arrived at accounting firm PwC in London for her first day as a temporary receptionist. But the first thing her temp supervisor said was that her shoes–a pair of black ballerina flats–were unacceptable, and she would have to get a pair with at least two inch heels. When she refused, she was sent home without pay.

Thorp said that she asked whether the same rules applied to her male colleagues, but the supervisor just laughed at her. The company couldn’t give her a single reason when she asked how wearing heels would improve her work. “I was expected to do a nine-hour shift on my feet escorting clients to meeting rooms. I said ‘I just won’t be able to do that in heels,'” she said.

Five months after the incident, Thorp created an online petition that quickly collected more than 150,000 signatures. Dozens of women tweeted photos about wearing flats to work in protest. It prompted an inquiry by two British parliamentary committees. On Wednesday, the committees released a report on the issue and concluded that the outsourcing firm, Portico, had broken the law.

#FamiliarFeminist of the day is #NicolaThorp!! Let’s make the work place safe and comfortable for women everywhere.https://t.co/DmWTikWYgW

— #UndefeatedSisters (@BeandBeyond_) January 27, 2017

This may seem like a petty matter, but for women fighting for professional equality, it is a big step. Aside from the fact that this rule is blatantly old-fashioned and sexist, Thorp also cited public health concerns, as high heels can be damaging to women’s feet. Why should women suffer through wearing them if it doesn’t improve their work, and the same uncomfortable rules don’t apply to men? During their investigation, the committees came across hundreds of cases of women who had been ordered to dye their hair blonde, wear more revealing clothes, or constantly reapply makeup.

The shoes that got Thorp sent home from work are already famous.

@HackneyMuseum Neat bit of contemporary collecting. Shoes that got Nicola Thorp sacked in 2016 pic.twitter.com/NHHkFYqVkL

— Museum of Marco Polo (@MoMarcoPolo) January 4, 2017

The parliamentary report stated that the law needs to be tightened to combat sexism in the workplace. “Discriminatory dress codes remain widespread,” the report said, and reiterated concern for workers who are affected by them, “many of whom are young women in insecure jobs who already feel vulnerable in the workplace.” Even though the dress code that the company imposed on Thorp was unlawful, many companies still require their female employees to wear heels. The government expects companies to research and follow the law voluntarily, but this is not enough, according to the report.

Thorp herself pointed out that now, more than ever, with a U.S. president who brags about grabbing women, it is important for women to speak up about this kind of discrimination. She said:

I refused to work for a company that expected women to wear makeup, heels and a skirt. This is unacceptable in 2017. People say sexism is not an issue anymore. But when a man who has admitted publicly to sexually harassing women is the leader of the free world, it is more crucial than ever to have laws that protect women.

The outsourcing company Thorp was working for, Portico, has said it has rewritten its appearance guidelines. It used to include warnings against greasy hair or flower accessories, and demanded heels two to four inches high, makeup “worn at all times” and “regularly reapplied,” with a minimum of lipstick, mascara, and eye shadow. Representatives for the company she was sent to work for, PwC, emphasized that the heels requirement was not in their guidelines and that they are committed to gender equality.

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 Nicola Thorp: Woman Who Was Sent Home for Wearing Flats Sparks Change in the UK appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Friday, everyone! The first week of January has seen a lot of rants, and unfortunately for some music lovers, one of the best-known music festivals is a prime target. 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:

Coachella: Do Politics Matter More Than Music This Year?

Wildly popular music festival Coachella just announced its 2017 lineup, and while it does have huge names such as Radiohead and Beyoncé, politics actually propelled it into the spotlight this time.

The festival’s CEO, Phil Anschutz, has donated big sums of money to organizations like the Alliance Defending Freedom and the National Christian Foundation. The former is a group working against abortion access and same-sex marriage, and the latter has been classified as an extremist group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. This news did not sit well with most Coachella fans. Many took to Twitter to express their dismay:

PSA: Don’t go to Coachella because your money will be going to the owner of Coachella, who donates to several Anti-LGBT groups. pic.twitter.com/jWYNzow4hy

— madi (@irlmadi) January 5, 2017

People also started calling for artists (and attendees) to boycott the festival:

BOYCOTT. https://t.co/meMnpfckwI

— Bradley Whitford (@WhitfordBradley) January 6, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: January 6, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Tweets sent out by WikiLeaks on Sunday afternoon had Julian Assange fans really concerned. The messages seemed like a “dead man’s switch”–which are encrypted messages containing highly classified material that become unveiled in case someone dies. This is what the messages looked like:

pre-commitment 1: John Kerry 4bb96075acadc3d80b5ac872874c3037a386f4f595fe99e687439aabd0219809

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 16, 2016

pre-commitment 2: Ecuador
eae5c9b064ed649ba468f0800abf8b56ae5cfe355b93b1ce90a1b92a48a9ab72

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 16, 2016

pre-commitment 3: UK FCO f33a6de5c627e3270ed3e02f62cd0c857467a780cf6123d2172d80d02a072f74

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 16, 2016

These messages had Twitter users speculating that Assange was, in fact, dead.

There were also theories about what the messages actually meant. One possibility is that John Kerry is next to be targeted by a big release of classified information, considering recent WikiLeaks publications have focused on the Democratic Party specifically. According to former Trump adviser Roger Stone, Kerry has previously threatened the Ecuadorian government.

John Kerry has threatened the Ecuadorian President with “grave consequences for Equador” if Assange is not silenced @StoneColdTruth

— Roger Stone (@RogerJStoneJr) October 17, 2016

Another interesting and bizarre aspect to the story is that actress Pamela Anderson unexpectedly and uninvited dropped by the embassy on Saturday to share a vegan lunch with Assange. Some fans even speculated that she was the one who had killed him, maybe hired by the American government, by bringing him a poisoned sandwich…but that obviously seems incredibly far-fetched.

@alburyj GET ASSANGE OUT OF THERE AND INTO HIDING. How do we know that Pamela Anderson isn’t working 4 someone to set up him up?

— Rosa Marzullo (@niftyrosa1) October 17, 2016

Pamela said she is an Assange supporter and that she is worried about his health. She wanted to bring him “a nice vegan lunch and some vegan snacks.” But maybe he would have preferred some hearty meat. “He said I tortured him with bringing him vegan food,” she said jokingly.

Finding out that Pamela Anderson & Julian Assange are friends is like watching an unlikely animal friendship video https://t.co/JnTTgrYCGg

— Gabriella Paiella (@GMPaiella) October 17, 2016

By Monday, everything pointed to Assange still being alive and well. Gizmodo speculated that “pre-commitment” in this case stands for a cryptographic plan to prevent classified and yet unreleased material from being tampered with.

The WikiLeaks Twitter account was active on Monday, also a good sign. In the early morning, it posted a tweet saying “a state party” had intentionally cut off Julian Assange’s internet connection. The message went on to say that the organization had “activated the appropriate contingency plans.”

Julian Assange’s internet link has been intentionally severed by a state party. We have activated the appropriate contingency plans.

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 17, 2016

On Saturday, WikiLeaks released the alleged full transcripts of Hillary Clinton’s paid speeches to financial firm Goldman Sachs. Many people thought the Monday cutoff of Assange’s internet was revenge for messing with Clinton.

We and many others believe Julian Assange’s internet was cut for criticizing Hillary Clinton. #FreeJulian

— Anonymous (@LatestAnonNews) October 17, 2016

Assange has been in hiding at Ecuador’s embassy in London for the last four years, trying to avoid extradition to Sweden over a rape case, which could lead to deportation to the U.S., where he fears he would be charged with espionage. The alleged internet cutoff comes after recent news that Sweden is not dropping the charges against him, and a press conference he held via video link on October 4. In that speech he promised 10 weeks of new releases of classified material, in celebration of Wikileak’s 10-year anniversary.

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 What’s Going on With Julian Assange and WikiLeaks? appeared first on Law Street.

A Swedish court decided on Friday that the arrest warrant for Wikileaks founder Julian Assange still stands. He was accused of rape during a visit to Sweden back in 2010 and remains in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. Assange denies the rape allegation and has refused to leave the embassy out of fear that he will be extradited to the United States where he could face espionage charges for documents leaked by his website.

Originally from Australia, Julian Assange visited Sweden in the summer of 2010 to give a lecture. He spent time with two Swedish women and over the course of a couple days he spent the night with each of them. Opinions diverge over what happened next. According to the women, what started out as consensual sex ended up being non-consensual. But Assange denies any wrongdoing and claimed he was shocked to hear the accusations.

Some people believe the women are part of a bigger political scheme to have Assange arrested. International media has criticized the strict Swedish rape laws, calling the country a “feminist dystopia” for how easy it is to be convicted while mocking the women for being upset that Assange dated more than one person at the same time. But the women’s testimonies, which were obtained by the Guardian, indicate that the case is more complicated than that. Assange allegedly attempted to have sex with both women without a condom, and although he eventually did use one, one of the women alleges that he intentionally ripped it before they had sex. The other woman claims she woke up and realized he was having unprotected sex with her, against her will. According to the Associated Press, allegations of sexual molestation and unlawful coercion were dropped due to the statute of limitations in Sweden, but the rape charge will remain until 2020.

In response to the ruling, Assange’s Swedish defense lawyer Per Samuelson told the Associated Press, “We are naturally disappointed that Swedish courts yet again choose to ignore Julian Assange’s difficult life situation. They ignore the risk that he will be extradited to the United States.”

Swedish prosecutors said they have not been in contact with the United States about Assange’s case, and if a third country asks to have Assange extradited it would need permission from Britain. Prosecutors are trying to move forward on the case by interrogating Assange at the embassy with the help of an Ecuadorean official who will question him on October 17.

Yesterday, the Wikileaks Twitter account said that Assange would turn himself into the United States if authorities release Chelsea Manning.

If Obama grants Manning clemency, Assange will agree to US prison in exchange — despite its clear unlawfulness https://t.co/MZU30S3Eia

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) September 15, 2016

Manning is currently serving a 35-year prison sentence for leaking classified materials. She ended her hunger strike earlier this week after the U.S. Army decided to allow her to undergo gender transition surgery.

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 Swedish Court: Detention Order for Julian Assange Stands appeared first on Law Street.

London Mayor Sadiq Khan is banning ads that promote negative body image from London public transportation.

It all started with this Protein World ad asking if passengers were “beach body ready” last spring.

As a result, 378 people filed formal complaints with the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), leading the ASA to prohibit the ad from appearing again in the London underground system. Beyond that, more than 70,000 people signed a change.org petition demanding Protein World take it down.

@SnugglingonSofa I did this earlier today: pic.twitter.com/PDjiLiPXkJ

— Booky w/t Curly Hair (@NicoleBurstein) April 23, 2015

Khan announced the ban on Monday, and it will go into effect in July.

“As the father of two teenage girls, I am extremely concerned about this kind of advertising which can demean people, particularly women, and make them ashamed of their bodies. It is high time it came to an end,” Khan said, according to a BBC report.

Research from the U.K.’s Government Equalities Office found that more than 50 percent of adults are ashamed of their appearance and one in five elementary school-aged girls has already gone on a diet in her lifetime.

Liam Preston, public affairs manager at the Be Real Campaign in the United Kingdom, said, “These negative influences out there…we don’t need them, and they will make people more anxious about how they look.”

Jessica Brown, 23, commutes in and out of London every day. Advertisements like Protein World’s poses a threat to people struggling with body image, she said, especially those who are working to overcome self harm or eating disorders.

“If you’re going to be on the tube for up to an hour, you don’t want to be looking at content that can be offensive,” Brown said. “It’s not going to help [people] on their path to recovery if they’re looking at this woman who’s been perfectly photoshopped.”

The ban will effect all transportation systems in London, including buses and the Tube. However, there is still much more that needs to be done in order to provoke global change on this issue.

“If the mayor understands it’s a big issue for Londoners…we’re hoping that the rest of the world is going to follow suit as well,” Preston said.

Samantha Reilly

Samantha Reilly is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. A New Jersey native, she is pursuing a B.A. in Journalism from the University of Maryland, College Park. Contact Samantha at SReilly@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post This Mayor Wants to Keep Billboards from Body-Shaming Londoners appeared first on Law Street.

Thirty-one athletes representing 12 countries and six sports may be barred from competing in Rio de Janeiro for this summer’s Olympic Games, due to a new round of testing conducted by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) on doping samples from the 2008 games in Beijing. The IOC has yet to release the names of the athletes, the countries they represent, or the events they compete in.

Tuesday’s announcement from the IOC was the result of using “the very latest scientific analysis methods” on 454 total samples of athletes who competed in Beijing and were poised to compete in Rio. The IOC saves samples for ten years after they’re initially procured for retesting as new methods for identifying banned substances are developed.

In a statement, IOC president Thomas Bach assured all clean athletes that justice will be served to those who cheat:

All these measures are a powerful strike against the cheats we do not allow to win. They show once again that dopers have no place to hide… By stopping so many doped athletes from participating in Rio we are showing once more our determination to protect the integrity of the Olympic competitions, including the Rio anti-doping laboratory, so that the Olympic magic can unfold in Rio de Janeiro.

The IOC also retested 250 samples from the 2012 London games. Results of those retests will be released shorty, the IOC said.

A report released in November by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) that found Russia complicit in a decades long, elaborate state-sponsored doping program, renewed efforts to clean up Olympic competition, long marred by doping scandals. (Read Law Street’s deep dive into that issue).

New details emerged last week, when Grigory Rodchenkov, director of Russia’s anti-doping laboratory, spoke with the New York Times about his country’s ornate doping schemes during the Winter Olympics in Sochi in 2014.

Belated punishment for Olympic athletes years after they won a medal is hardly new to Beijing. Following a retest of 100 samples from the 2004 Athens games, four athletes were stripped of their medals due to anabolic steroid use.

As the specters of the Zika virus and Brazil’s scandal-plagued government loom over the Rio games in August, Tuesday’s results and those soon to be released from the London games are sure to shake things up even further.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Retest of 2008 Beijing Olympic Samples Find 31 Guilty of Doping appeared first on Law Street.

At the St. Pancras train station in London on Tuesday, a tanned Englishman with silver hair and a French woman born in Spain walk and talk about a number of pressing topics. Among them: Donald Trump. Anne Hidalgo, Mayor of Paris, and Sadiq Khan, her London counterpart, met for the first time since Khan’s mayoral victory over the weekend.

Hidalgo seems to be in the same camp as Khan in her views of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, albeit with a slightly blunter delivery: “Mr. Trump is so stupid, my God, my God,” she said.

On Monday, Khan, London’s first Muslim mayor, expressed disapproval of Trump’s “banning Muslims” tactic and the overall tone of his campaign, comparing him to Zac Goldsmith, the Conservative Party mayoral candidate he beat out on Saturday.

“I’m confident that Donald Trump’s approach to politics won’t win in America,” Khan said in an interview with Time magazine. “I think to try and look for differences, to try and turn communities against each other is not conducive to living successfully and amicably.”

Hidalgo and Khan lead two of the world’s most diverse cities, Paris and London, and Khan especially has highlighted his background and multi-faceted identity as proof that Islam and Western democratic values are indeed compatible.

The son of Pakistani parents–a bus driver and a seamstress–a lawyer, a Muslim, and now the mayor of London, Khan views his new success as the antithesis to Trump’s calls for banning Muslims from entering the U.S., which he said he would do if elected president.

“What I think the election showed was that actually there is no clash of civilization between Islam and the West,” he said.

Khan and Trump engaged in a minor, press proxy scuffle earlier this week when Khan mentioned to Time he’d better visit America before January because “I’ll be stopped from going there by virtue of my faith.” Trump’s response: “There will always be exceptions,” he told the New York Times. Khan scoffed at Trump’s offer.

Whether Trump grants him a pass to his proposed Muslim ban or not was not the message Hidalgo and Khan aimed to send the billionaire with their meeting at the London train station. “Our message to Donald Trump is: this is how you work together; this is the best of humanity; this is the best of the west,” Khan said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo and London Mayor Sadiq Khan Meet; Diss Donald Trump appeared first on Law Street.

Banksy is a famous graffiti artist, political activist, and film director whose “real” identity has never been released. For years, there has been rampant speculation about who exactly Banksy is, but his true name has remained under wraps at least in part because graffiti is still a crime. However, his identity may now be easier to figure out than ever before, thanks to some British criminologists who have tested a new system of “geographic profiling” to help catch serial offenders.

Geographic profiling is not new–in fact you’ve probably seen some early derivations of it on your favorite crime procedural. At its most basic, it can be used to pinpoint origins of all sorts of things, including disease outbreaks. When applied to criminology, it can be used to pinpoint serial offenders, by taking crime scenes and then using mathematical formulas to map where an offender may live or frequent.

Researchers at Queen Mary University of London have been trying to create improved versions of geographic profiling, and in order to test their new system, inputted incidences of Banksy’s graffiti in both London and Bristol. The formula spit back the name Robin Gunningham, which shouldn’t really surprise Banksy fans because Gunningham’s name has come up as a Banksy suspect before. The researchers published these findings in the Journal of Spatial Science. However, they were clear to point out that they didn’t think that their method was going to work as well as it did. Steve Le Comber, one of the authors of the study, stated:

What I thought I would do is pull out the 10 most likely suspects, evaluate all of them and not name any… But it rapidly became apparent that there is only one serious suspect, and everyone knows who it is.

As with almost any application of academia, there have been criticisms of the study, including the fact that the researchers didn’t include some outliers, and that because Banksy’s work is anonymous, they could have unknowingly included copycats. And Le Comber and the other researchers are careful to say that Banksy is not definitely Gunningham, but just that their research offers additional support for the theory.

After the findings of the study became known, Bansky’s legal team contacted the researchers, apparently taking some issue with a press release that was going to accompany the study’s journalistic publication. That press release has since been yanked. The paper itself, which apparently Banksy’s legal team did not take issue with, was published Thursday.

The researchers’ findings certainly don’t prove anything definitively about who Bansky actually is–but the fact that they match up with a man who has been accused of being Banksy before isn’t a coincidence. This look into Banksy’s identity was certainly an interesting application of geographic profiling, but if this kind of technology works it could have a huge impact on tracking serial offenders of much more vicious crimes.

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 Statistics Meet Art: British Scientists May Have Tracked Down Banksy appeared first on Law Street.

The 2016 Olympics in Rio de Janeiro may not include Russia, after a World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) commission has determined that Russian athletes used illegal substances. The release of the commission’s report has led to speculation that the Russian Federation will be banned from the next Olympic games in 2016.

An independent commission convened by the WADA concluded that Russia undertook a program of state-sponsored doping for its athletes at the 2012 summer Olympics in London, as well as other international athletic events, like the Chicago Marathon. The inquiry took 10 months, and was created after a German radio station aired a piece that accused Russia of state-sponsored doping. The radio piece featured admissions from athletes, coaches, and others, and claimed that the government had helped to cover up test results that would have excluded Russian athletes from various events.

The report claims that coaches, athletes, trainers, doctors, and the lab in Moscow that is responsible for testing Russian athletes’ samples were all involved. The report mostly focused on track-and-field athletes–a group responsible for a large number of the inquiries. According to a New York Times description of the report:

It detailed payments to conceal doping tests and arrangements by which athletes were made aware of when they would be tested, in violation of code which dictates they be spontaneous, and also the destruction of samples.

The report also said that members of Russian law enforcement agencies were present in the Moscow lab and involved in the efforts to interfere with the integrity of the samples, creating ‘an atmostphere of intimidation’ on lab processes and staff members.

The findings also criticized Russia for a “deeply rooted culture of cheating at all levels” and said that the Russian athletes who competed despite doping essentially sabotaged the 2012 Summer Olympic games because they shouldn’t have been allowed to compete in the first place. Russian athletes won 24 gold medals in those games.

Richard W. Pound, who was a co-author of the report and a member of the commission, stated that the commission’s recommendation is that the Russian Federation is suspended from bringing athletes to the 2016 Summer Games in Rio. The report also recommends that five of the athletes and coaches implicated be banned from their sports for life.

However, whether or not we’ll be seeing Russia at the 2016 games will be left up to the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF). In light of the allegations from the WADA report, the president of the IAAF, Seb Coe, said:

We need time to properly digest and understand the detailed findings included in the report. However, I have urged the Council to start the process of considering sanctions against All-Russia Athletic Federation (ARAF).

This step has not been taken lightly. Our athletes, partners and fans have my total assurance that where there are failures in our governance or our anti-doping programmes we will fix them.

We will do whatever it takes to protect the clean athletes and rebuild trust in our sport. The IAAF will continue to offer the police authorities our full cooperation into their ongoing investigation.

While Russia’s absence from the 2016 Olympic Games would surely be missed, and could affect viewership and ratings, if a suspension is what it takes for the country to crack down on doping, that may be the path the IAAF chooses.

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post Will Russia be Excluded from the 2016 Olympic Games? appeared first on Law Street.

A top HIV Clinic in London is apologizing big time Wednesday after it accidentally violated the privacy of nearly 800 of its patients by revealing their HIV positive statuses thanks to an embarrassing email error.

The mishap occurred Tuesday, when an undisclosed 56 Dean Street employee sent out an email newsletter intended for people using its HIV and other sexual health services, but forgot to hide the contact list–therefore revealing the identity of almost 800 patients affiliated with the establishment.

Realizing what had happened, the clinic quickly sent out an email apology within hours to its patients courtesy of Dr Alan McOwan, Chelsea and Westminster hospital NHS trust’s director for sexual health.

Identities of nearly 800 HIV-positive patients revealed after email blunder at NHS clinic http://t.co/4QPmfsi7Ne pic.twitter.com/nJjZacCsQX

— Daily Mail U.K. (@DailyMailUK) September 2, 2015

The email read:

I’m writing to apologise to you. This morning at around 11.30am we sent you the latest edition of Option E newsletter. This is normally sent to individuals on an individual basis, but unfortunately we sent out today’s email to a group of email addresses. We apologise for this error. We recalled/deleted the email as soon as we realised what had happened. If it is still in your inbox please delete it immediately. Clearly this is completely unacceptable. We are urgently investigating how this has happened and I promise you that we will take steps to ensure it never happens again. We will send you the outcome of the investigation.”

When later interviewed by a London reporter, Dr. McOwan also had this video message for the public.

VIDEO: Boss here at 56 Dean St sexual health surgery will not quit over huge #HIV info leak. My report on @LBC at 3pm pic.twitter.com/gkg5r9SKIX

— Connor Gillies (@ConnorGillies) September 2, 2015

However, demanding that people immediately delete an email that they may or may not have already seen because it contains things they shouldn’t see has exactly the opposite desired effect–it only calls more attention to the damning material.

Case in point, one anonymous patient of 56 Dean St, whose boyfriend also received the email, told Buzzfeed that when he received the email he was outraged. He then said,

I thought it was disgusting that I was seeing a massive list of their patients. It’s not difficult to deduce the HIV status of every single one of those people. So I have their full names, their email address. I could easily put any of those details into Facebook and bring up pictures and personal details.

He went on to add,

There were people on there I recognised. It made me uncomfortable for them and for myself that I’m finding out information that they may not have wanted me to know.

Despite the nature of the email, the clinic has noted numerous times that not all of the recipients of the email were necessarily HIV-positive, but in effect having their names associated with the breach unavoidably associates them with the disease.

A 56 Dean Street spokesman told the Guardian that the breach boils down to a “human mistake” and that the employee responsible was distraught. Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt has also ordered an inquiry into the incident. While this very well may have been a mistake and the person responsible may feel bad about it, that doesn’t make up for this horrible breach of doctor patient confidentiality. He or she should also be immediately ordered to install Google’s new “undo-send” feature, in the hopes of preventing a breach like this moving forward. Technology certainly makes treating patients easier, but it also can mean a more careful hand is needed when handling sensitive information.

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 HIV Clinic Accidentally Releases Identities of Hundreds of its Patients appeared first on Law Street.

Mayor of London Boris Johnson just announced that by the end of March 2016, the majority of Metropolitan Police officers will be supplied with 20,000 body cameras in an effort to help officers gather evidence to fight crime and boost public confidence. Metropolitan Police Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe said, “For too long our equipment has lagged behind the technology almost everyone has in their pockets to capture events as they unfold.” But while this now-international trend toward implementing body cams can help to uphold the law in theory, there are still concerns about whether this technology can really do its job in practice.

Mayor Boris Johnson confirms plans to roll out 20,000 police body cameras across the Met: https://t.co/JTlW1tKUpj pic.twitter.com/2W32Hznv4K

— MOPAC (@MOPACLdn) June 3, 2015

This development will make London the most body camera heavy city in the world, further advancing Britain’s status as one of the most surveilled states. The British Security Industry Authority (BSIA) estimates that there are up to 5.9 million closed-circuit television cameras in the country, or one camera for every eleven people in the United Kingdom.

For the past year, police officers in London have undergone trials of the body cameras and have reported positive results. The trial has allowed officers to generate about 6,000 video clips per month, which are uploaded daily and referenced when the footage is considered necessary for evidence. These trials, set to end later this summer, suggest that the implementation of body cameras can increase the number of guilty pleas and reduce complaints, speeding up the justice system. London police have come under scrutiny for controversial stop-and-search laws, which disproportionately target minority groups. London officials hope that body cameras will help to improve public trust and increase officer accountability in these scenarios.

While body cameras may be useful for monitoring daily operations of police officers, some civil rights groups are concerned that the technology will prove to be an intrusive surveillance tool that can be easily exploited. There is also concern about who has access to the footage and if it will be publicly accessible. The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime has plans to lead a citywide public engagement training to explain how the cameras work and when Londoners might encounter them. The London Policing Ethics Panel intends to produce the United Kingdom’s first report regarding the ethics of officers’ use of the cameras, which will be published in the fall.

Cities across the United States are also providing their officers with cameras. The company Taser, a maker of body cams, reported a 50 percent increase in sales in the first three months of 2015. While continued proliferation of body cameras seems forthcoming, critiques of the cameras’ use are also widespread. Most footage caught on camera is not considered public record, which has proved problematic–police departments can easily erase destructive footage. In some cases, officers forget to turn on their body or dashboard cameras, since neither device is constantly recording, but needs to be manually switched on. Some police officers’ cameras have conveniently malfunctioned at the time of an encounter, leaving victims of police brutality without evidence of their claims. Had the Ferguson, Missouri police department mandated the use of police officer body cameras or used dashboard cameras in patrol cars, the mystery surrounding what truly happened leading up to and during the fatal Michael Brown shooting of 2014 would have been absolved.

Necessary changes must be made to officer accountability in the wake of years of unrest. London is taking a huge step forward in what may become a revolution in police liability and encouraging a positive shift in public discourse about law enforcement. Video clips should be accessible by the public. Police officers should be held individually accountable for the use of their cameras, by disciplining those who routinely forget to turn on their body cams. Police departments, prosecutors, and every other chain of command throughout the justice system should work toward preserving footage to protect the rights of the abused, even if—and especially when—police officers are in the wrong. While implementation of body cameras is the first move going forward–and London should be applauded for its efforts–effective, ethical execution of their use is the most important step.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post London Moves Forward with Police Body Cams: Will the U.S. Follow? appeared first on Law Street.

In a lot of ways it’s easier than ever for students to cheat on exams. Many students now have small handheld devices that we can use to access pretty much the whole of human knowledge–I’m talking about smartphones, of course. Smartphones have been banned from our classrooms, particularly during exam time, since they became popular. But now schools are trying to keep up by banning the latest form of mobile technology: smartwatches. For some schools, the easiest way to do that is to ban watches altogether.

Right now, the bans on watches seem to be catching on in the United Kingdom, with the University of London and London’s City University both banning the accessory.

It makes total sense that a school would want to ban smartwatches. They could obviously be used to store notes or cheat sheets that could be pulled up with just a flick of the finger. But it goes further than that–the whole idea of the technology is that it acts as a sort of extension of a smartphone. You can set them up so they give you certain notifications–for example, emails, or text messages. So, you could have a friend text you information at a particular time. Or, more simply, set up a timed email or message to send you information at a particular time during your test. Depending on what watch you have, you could also look up information during the test itself.

Some schools have banned the smartwatches themselves. Weber State University, for example, a college in Utah, has banned smartwatches during tests. It’s not just colleges, either. The College Board, the organization that runs SAT testing, has already banned them as well.

Why would schools ban all wrist watches though, in the hopes of catching just a few students who have smartwatches and hope to use them to cheat? Well, smartwatches look pretty snazzy, pretty much like real watches. If you’re not familiar with a smartwatch, as some professors may not be, it would be difficult to figure it out by just glancing at the device. It would also be a tough task for professors who teach large lecture halls with hundreds of students, and end up being a waste of time.

That being said, I think there are definitely downsides to a ban on watches as well. For one, it’s a pretty common accessory–it would be easy to forget to take off a watch the day of an exam. Secondly, any classrooms that banned watches would basically have to ensure that a clock is present in the classroom. Being able to manage time effectively is an important testing skill–many professors design tests that will take up more time than the class is allotted, if you aren’t careful. While banning watches may prevent incidental cases of cheating, it’s simpler said than done.

This is yet another example of the ways in which technology, while great, can run straight into commonsense rules. While smartwatches certainly are a threat to the integrity of our classrooms, schools will have to be very careful when it comes to figuring out the right way to mitigate that danger.

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 Smartwatch Scare: Will Schools Ban Watches to Prevent Cheating? appeared first on Law Street.

In the workplace, there are certain parameters of acceptable behavior that are common knowledge, and then it is up to a given company’s discretion to set additional rules. For example, a big-time global firm by the name of Clifford Chance recently sent out an office memo on how to act appropriately within the workplace to its American offices. Parts of the memo were aimed seeming exclusively at women, and overall the piece was a rather impressive display of sexism.

The memo was entitled “Speaking Effectively” and contained 150 pieces of advice on various types of presentation skills. Some of the tips were pretty benign and gender-neutral, such as to bring notes to presentations, make strong eye contact, timing speeches, and using pauses effectively. However, others were clearly aimed at women, and can be considered patronizing at best.

The five-page memo is broken up into a number of categories, and each category seems to contain an extra tip for women. Some of my personal favorite lines:

• “Pretend you’re in moot court, not the high school cafeteria.”
• “Your voice is higher than you hear. Think Lauren Bacall, not Marilyn Monroe.”
• “Don’t giggle.”
• “Don’t hide behind your hair.”
• “Don’t take your purse up to the podium.”
• “Wear a suit, not your party outfit.”
• “Understated jewelry, nothing jingly or clanky.”
• “No one heard Hillary the day she showed cleavage.”
• “If wearing a skirt, make sure audience can’t see up it when sitting on the dias.”
• “Make sure you can stand in your heels, not trip, don’t rock back on them.”

None of these tips could be construed as anything but specifically aimed at female attorneys. Stating that Lauren Bacall, an American actress known for her “distinctive husky voice and sultry looks,” is a more appropriate voice role model than a different actress is condescending. Demeaning our former Secretary of State Clinton’s outfit choices is uninspired—no one would ever make an equal comparison to our male politicians. And overall, this memo treats female attorneys as though they are teenagers, and reduces their high educational attainment and worth to their physical and verbal appearances.

The worst part about this memo is the way in which these tips are presented, not the tips themselves. As someone who has competed in public speaking activities for many years, and who is constantly charged with teaching other young women how to present, some aspects of these are grounded in reality. The issue is that they’re not just for women, they’re tips for men too. Everyone should know that there’s an appropriate professional voice and personal voice. Both women and men should speak differently to their friends than their coworkers. But by comparing women’s voices to celebrities, and not making a similar comparison for men, is where this memo veers into grossly inappropriate territory.

As much as we would like to think differently, women are still at a disadvantage in the workplace. While estimates of its actual value range from 77 cents – 91 cents, the gender pay gap does indisputably exist. Furthermore, we constantly are hearing case after case of sexual harassment—from San Diego Mayor Bob Filner’s rampant inappropriate behavior, to a recent revelation that unpaid interns aren’t necessarily protected from sexual harassment.

Then there are memos like this one from Clifford Chance. It differentiates between men and women, and while it cannot necessarily be legally defined as sexual harassment, it is absolutely discriminatory. As long as women are treated like children while being told how to behave appropriately in the work place at a prominent firm, workplace equality will remain a struggle.

—

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 [Steve Wilson 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 Commonsense Etiquette or Blatant Sexism? appeared first on Law Street.