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:

NAACP Issues Travel Advisory for Missouri

The NAACP has issued its first-ever statewide travel advisory for the state of Missouri. This announcement came after Senate Bill 43 passed the state legislature and was signed by Governor Eric Greitens. The new law makes it harder for employees to prove their protected class status in a lawsuit; critics, including the NAACP, say that it makes discrimination easier and dubbed it a “Jim Crow bill.”

The advisory is intended to let people of color and members of the LGBT community traveling through the state know what’s going on, and to be particularly vigilant. It cites recent instances of police brutality and discrimination in Missouri, and asks that everyone “warn your families, co-workers, and anyone visiting Missouri to beware of the safety concerns with travel in Missouri, notify members of your trade associations, social and civil organizations that they are traveling and living in Missouri at their own risk and subject to unnecessary search seizure and potential arrest, and file and seek help on any existing claims for discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and whistle blowing ASAP before your legal rights are lost.”

.@NAACP issues travel advisory for Missouri, the first in its 108-year history, after passage of “Jim Crow Bill” https://t.co/sEFbjOzQUa pic.twitter.com/N1UyXNEcqk

— New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) August 2, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 3, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

On July 7, Arkansas and Missouri became the first two states to ban the use of the pesticide dicamba. In the age-old struggle between farmers and weeds, dicamba is the newest weapon in a farmer’s arsenal. The way a lot of farming works these days is big companies, like Monsanto, genetically modify seeds so that they are resistant to certain pesticides, like dicamba. But the pesticide has ravaged acres of farmland, killing off crops that are not resistant to its fatal chemicals. In response, states are beginning to temporarily ban the use of dicamba. Read on to learn more about dicamba and the legal issues that have cropped up around its use: 

Seeds of the Conflict

Many farmers have begun planting dicamba-resistant seeds, particularly farmers in the Midwest. According to the Center for Biological Diversity, 1.5 million of the roughly 3 million acres of soybeans planted in the state are Monsanto’s dicamba-resistant soybeans.

While nearly half of soybean farms in Arkansas are full of dicamba-resistant seeds, more than half of them are full of seeds that are not resistant to the pesticide. This is where the problem begins. Dicamba began drifting into fields planted with non-resistant seeds, killing off many plants that were not genetically modified to withstand the pesticide. When this started happening many farmers took their complaints to the Arkansas State Plant Board.

The Plant Board is a state run entity whose mission is to provide “information and unbiased enforcement of laws and regulations” that have to do with agriculture in Arkansas. They received enough complaints that the state governments of Missouri and Arkansas had to take action. Both states have banned dicamba use between July 11 and November 7. The Arkansas ruling states:

Many other instances of exposure of non-target crops being exposed to dicamba have been reported and this situation poses a grave threat to the farm economy of Arkansas and therefore the public interest requires taking action to prevent unintentional exposure of non-target crops to dicamba. Therefore, the Board finds that there is imminent peril to the public health, safety and welfare that requires adoption of emergency regulations and that the regulation should take effect upon filing with the Secretary of State.

Missouri released a similar statement that stopped the sale or use of dicamba. Missouri’s ban, which includes any product with dicamba in it, will last longer than Arkansas’, lasting until December 1.

This federal action follows a years-long struggle between farmers and weeds, pesticides and plants–and even farmer and farmer.

What is Dicamba?

Dicamba is not a new pesticide. In fact, it was devised in 1958, cooked up by the chemical company BASF. And it is not the only pesticide that farmers use. Roundup, an incredibly toxic weed killer, was once a favorite of farmers. Seed companies manufactured genetically modified seeds that were “Roundup-ready,” and could withstand the toxic pesticides.

Roundup seemed like a good solution for a while. Rather than losing crops to weeds or having to go out and eliminate every weed by hand, Roundup would do the work for you. It was an easy solution, but it did not last long. Weeds began evolving, and developed resistance to Roundup. Thus, farmers began looking for new pesticides that paired with new genetically modified seeds.  

In the Arkansas government’s Emergency Rule, which temporarily bans the use of dicamba, it recognizes the benefits of pesticides. The rule states:

Pesticides are valuable to the State’s agricultural production and to the protection of man and the environment from insects, rodents, weeds and other forms of life which may be pests; but it is essential to the public health and welfare that they be regulated to prevent adverse effects on human life and the environment.

First Signs of Resistance

It all began with a weed called pigweed, a group of weeds which became resistant to most pesticides. Pigweed also spreads like wildfire. “You get one plant in your field, and that one plant can produce more than a million seeds. Many of the seeds become new plants that can choke your fields,” said Steve Inskeep of NPR. Some farmers would rip it from the ground when they saw it. Others resorted to spraying dicamba.

For the 2016 growing season, Monsanto released a new dicamba spray that was less prone to drifting. Old dicamba sprays would vaporize and spread to other farmers’ land. If it drifted to a farm full of non-resistant seeds, the farmer’s plants would wither and die.

The new drift-averse dicamba spray has not been approved by the EPA and Monsanto told farmers not to use other drift-prone sprays, due to the problems that arose from its use. 

Farmers were fined as much as $1,000 for using the illegal spray before the ban went into effect. A steep price, but when their entire yield is at risk of being killed by a weed, some farmers decided to cut their losses. According to The Progressive Farmer, “The Environmental Protection Agency has confirmed that it executed federal search warrants at several southeastern Missouri locations as part of an investigation into alleged misuse or misapplication of dicamba onto herbicide-tolerant soybeans and cotton.”

Drift is nothing new to farmers. Other pesticides have had these problems before. But in the past, farmers would just talk it out to settle the problem. With the onset of dicamba, farmers have taken their complaints to the state. 

Arkansas Bans Dicamba

Some farmers purchased dicamba-resistant seeds, but many others did not. Their crops are starting to die off at alarming rates, and it is believed that dicamba is largely to blame.

Many crops, including soybeans, cotton, and corn, die when they are exposed to dicamba. The leaves of the plants curl and pucker, leaving farmers with a loss on their investment.  

Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported:

As of noon Wednesday, the Plant Board, a division of the state Department of Agriculture, had received 551 complaints of damage to soybeans, cotton, vegetables and fruit, up from 25 complaints four weeks ago. The increasing numbers led [Governor Asa] Hutchinson to sign on to a 120-day emergency ban on the sale and use of dicamba.

Terry Walker, the Plant Board’s director, said in an interview with Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that the government had a right to protect the farmers who had not bought dicamba-resistant seeds and who were experiencing adverse effects because of other farmers who were using an illegal pesticide.

The Plant Board also requested an increase in fines. Their request was approved. Beginning on August 1, fines for farmers caught using dicamba will rise from $1,000 to $25,000.

A Pesticide Worth Killing For?

The main controversy surrounding dicamba has been the effect the pesticide has on crops. But one case escalated to the point of murder.

In 2016, farmers began noticing an increase in damages to crops that were not dicamba-resistant. More than 200,000 acres of fruits and vegetables, including soybeans, tomatoes, watermelon, and peaches, took a hit. In a year that was already one of the leanest since 2002, this extra damage was not a welcome sight.

Mike Wallace, a farmer in Arkansas, started noticing a decline in his yield. His crops were dying, and it looked like dicamba was to blame. After complaining to the Plant Board, Wallace took matters into his own hands. He called up Allan Curtis Jones, a 26-year-old farmer from Arbyrd, Missouri. The two argued over the phone and eventually met in person. The meeting, according to Modern Farmer, did not go well:

Wallace grabbed Jones by the arm during the argument, Jones pulled out a gun and shot the older man, who was unarmed. Jones’ cousin called 911 and deputies found Wallace dead by the side of the road when they arrived.

Jones was arraigned last November and was released on a $150,000 bail.

Is Dicamba Legal in Other States?

Dicamba is very toxic and thus highly regulated.

The EPA has approved a list of 34 states (including Arkansas and Missouri) where dicamba can be registered to be used on genetically engineered cotton and soybeans. The EPA has also approved a special strain of dicamba, Xtendimax, that can be used on genetically engineered cotton and soybeans.

Xtendimax “is designed to be the industry’s lowest volatility dicamba,” according to its manufacturer, meaning it is less likely to evaporate. The problem with other dicamba formulas was they would evaporate once sprayed, and float to nearby fields, some of which were not planted with dicamba-resistant seeds. This new formula, which still requires farmers to follow a list of precautions in order to ensure they are adhering to safe practices, was designed to combat the drifting problems many farmers were seeing.

Next Steps

For farmers in Arkansas and Missouri, the next steps will be to untangle the complaints, and to closely examine dicamba’s potential problems and opportunities. Bob Scott, professor and weed scientist at the University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service, recently told CropLife, “Going into the fall, we’re really going to have to look at drift complaints, categorize and narrow them down, and try to figure out what’s going on here to determine whether we can use this technology or not.”

Scott said that some farms that were following the rules were still being investigated because their neighbors reported what looked like dicamba-related damage. That could mean a variety of things. Perhaps the dicamba is drifting farther than farmers previously thought it could. Maybe the approved methods of dicamba use are not as safe as was once thought. Whatever the answer ends up being, a thorough investigation will likely be conducted in the coming months. 

Conclusion

Dicamba has led to a lose-lose situation for farmers in Arkansas and Missouri. The farmers who did not buy genetically modified seeds saw losses because their crops could not withstand the illegal use of dicamba. The farmers who did buy dicamba-resistant seeds are now barred from using the powerful pesticide because of the new Emergency Rule. Their options are limited. Some plausible options are they can either pull weeds by hand, try other pesticides, or hope that the weeds do not kill too many of their crops. For now, farmers in Arkansas and Missouri must resist using dicamba, unless they accept the hefty fine–or worse. 

Anne Grae Martin

Anne Grae Martin is a member of the class of 2017 University of Delaware. She is majoring in English Professional Writing and minoring in French and Spanish. When she’s not writing for Law Street, Anne Grae loves doing yoga, cooking, and correcting her friends’ grammar mistakes. Contact Anne Grae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dicamba: A Look at the “Deadly” Pesticide appeared first on Law Street.

The battle between church and state is moving from the playground to the Supreme Court. Five years ago, Trinity Lutheran Church in Missouri applied for money from the state so that it could repair a playground used by students in the church’s learning center. Because children had been scraping their knees and elbows on the gravel, Trinity wanted to cover the area with a rubber surface.

Because Missouri’s constitution does not allow public funds to support religious organizations, it rejected the church’s application for a grant. The church sued in response, insisting that it should have been eligible to receive the grant because the playground upgrade did not serve any religious purposes. After losing in federal district court and appellate court, Trinity’s case eventually reached the United States Supreme Court, which plans to hear arguments starting on Wednesday, April 19.

What the case boils down to is whether or not the provision in Missouri’s constitution violates the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, which prohibits the government from encroaching on the free exercise of religion.

Now, Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens has announced his plans to undo the state’s policy that prohibits tax dollars from going toward religious groups. Jeffrey Mittman, the director of Missouri’s branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, is among Greitens’ critics who said that his move violates the state’s constitution.

Greitens’ new policy will not reverse the state’s refusal to give Trinity the grant. However, because it settles future issues involving religious institutions applying for grants, it could mean that the Supreme Court will no longer see the need to hear the Trinity case.

But one of the church’s attorneys, David Cortman, insisted that the case is still relevant because Greitens’ move does not “resolve the discriminatory actions that were taken” by the state.

Having the recently confirmed Supreme Court appointee Neil Gorsuch weigh in on the matter could benefit the church. While a judge for a U.S. appeals court in Colorado, Gorsuch argued that religious freedom protected the store chain Hobby Lobby from the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that it would have to offer its employees free birth control coverage.

And, depending on how narrowly the Supreme Court rules, the outcome of the case could have implications in other parts of the country as well–particularly in the 38 states that currently uphold Blaine Amendments, laws that prevent their governments from giving any financial aid to religiously-affiliated institutions.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How a Church Playground Caused a Dispute Over Religious Freedom appeared first on Law Street.

For many people, high school is neither easy nor pleasurable. In some cases, the situation can get so bad it ends in tragedy. Seventeen-year-old Kenneth Suttner was so severely bullied both in school and at work that he took his own life on December 21. But in an unusual development, his former boss at Dairy Queen where he worked after school has now been charged with involuntary manslaughter for his death.

Friends and family members testified in court that Suttner had fought all his life to shield himself from verbal and physical bullying. He went to Glasgow High School in Missouri where he was a frequent target of bullying for his weight and speech impediment. Other parents said that the school consistently failed to deal with the problem of bullying. One of them, Barbara Smith, said she had to move her son to another school district because the situation was so bad.

In Kenneth Suttner’s case, it didn’t even end when he went home from school. At his after-school job, his 21-year-old female manager Harley Branham kept the harassment going, according to testimony from Sutter’s former coworkers. Dairy Queen employees said Branham regularly harassed Suttner, she would make Suttner lie on his stomach to clean the floor by hand and once threw a cheeseburger at him for not doing a good job. After years of bullying in school and three months of working at the Dairy Queen, Suttner wrote suicide notes to his family and shot himself in the head.

Horribly bullied teen committed suicide; Dairy Queen manager charged https://t.co/XfnaP8nFV9 pic.twitter.com/BjPdM9g3Kf

— Canoe (@Canoe) February 2, 2017

On Tuesday the county coroner, Frank Flaspohler, held an official inquest, which is a process that is similar to a grand jury investigation but open to the public. This can be sought if it is believed that an occurred death was caused by a safety or health hazard that could continue to harm people. After the six-person jury listened to six hours of testimony from almost 20 witnesses, they reached the conclusion that Branham was “was the principal in the cause of death,” that Dairy Queen had failed to properly train their employees about how to prevent bullying, and that the same went for the high school.

Branham was among the witnesses that testified and admitted she had called him names but didn’t understand how that could have caused his suicide. She claimed that everything had been in a joking manner. The special prosecutor in the case, April Wilson, said, “We wanted to be very cautious and responsible. Both sides of the issue are extremely important. A young man is dead. But we also want to acknowledge that it’s not easy being in public education.” On Wednesday, she filed a second-degree involuntary manslaughter charge against Branham.

Dairy Queen released a statement saying that it was gathering more information about the case and that the restaurant is run by an independently owned franchise. County coroner Flaspohler hopes his decision to hold the inquest will lead to some change in how schools deal with bullied children. “Hopefully this makes the school pay attention to what’s going on. And it’s not just in that school. We all need to wake up and say this exists and we need to take care of it,” he said. Kenneth Suttner’s family also hoped the school would take action, saying, “If this can help one child at least Kenneth’s death wasn’t in vain.”

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 Dairy Queen Manager Charged With Manslaughter in Bullied Teenager’s Suicide appeared first on Law Street.

Missouri is joining 10 other states by implementing a constitutional carry law, prompting The New York Times to dub it the “Shoot-Me State.”

Republican Missouri lawmakers overwhelmingly voted for less restrictions–a win for gun-rights advocates, overriding Democratic Governor Jay Nixon’s veto on SB 656 last week.

Citizens of Missouri will be able to carry concealed weapons without a permit, background check, or safety training under the new law. The law also institutes Stand Your Ground initiatives, known for lowering the standard for deadly use of a firearm by allowing gun owners to claim self-defense based on perceived feeling of threat.

“Missouri wants to let people carry guns with no training, even when you play Pokemon they start you off w/training” https://t.co/eg7R59haJv

— aka ✯ phil (@fak3r) September 16, 2016

Missouri:The Shoot-Me State: stand your ground, guns to people with violent records, how dumb can we get? https://t.co/qCW50H97IT

— Alexander Stille (@a_stille) September 16, 2016

Damn mfs can carry guns w/ out a license or no papers or age limit on January first in Missouri… Mfs been doing it but now it’s legal

— #SteveeeDriveee (@DaddyZae_) September 16, 2016

The Republican controlled legislature has continuously clashed with the Democratic governor, overriding a record number of the governor’s vetoes Wednesday at 13, adding to the already 83 overrides since he took office in 2009.

Nixon vetoed the legislation in June, stating that citizens who previously may have been denied a permit or would have been denied a permit due to the background check will now be able to carry a concealed gun, according to The New York Times.

Democratic lawmakers have stated that this law will negatively affect minority communities.

“What I don’t want to get to is the point where there is a trigger-happy police officer or bad Samaritan like Zimmerman who says, ‘Black boy in the hood. Skittles. Let’s shoot,'” Senator Maria Chappelle-Nadal, who represents University City, said to the AP, referencing the killing of Trayvon Martin.

On the contrary, Republican lawmakers say that this law will ensure that law-abiding citizens can adequately protect themselves and their families.

The National Rifle Association supported the bill and released a statement following its override.

In addition, concerns about law enforcement were discussed, opponents of this bill were worried that these new provisions will make officers less safe.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Missouri Lawmakers Override Governor’s Constitutional Carry Veto appeared first on Law Street.

Andy Warhol’s soup cans are one of the most iconic images of American pop art–and last week, someone decided to take them for a walk. The Springfield Art Museum of Springfield, Missouri reported a burglary last week that involved several prints made by Warhol in 1968. The FBI has announced a $25,000 reward for information leading to the apprehension of the thieves–which seems excessive until you consider that a single one of Warhol’s soup can prints sold for $30,660 last year at Christie’s. The reward also pales in comparison to the $5 million reward offered for information regarding the Isabella Stewart Gardener Museum robbery–during which multiple pieces by Renoir and Vermeer were stolen. Yet it is still a massive sum that will hopefully tempt informants to come forward.

The FBI has a specially designated Art Crime Team brought in to handle matters involving stolen artwork but unless the prints are found relatively quickly, they may be transferred into the collection of a private buyer via the black market and never seen again. The FBI operates a National Stolen Art File, which provides a comprehensive index of art that has been stolen worldwide, but with a piece as recognizable as Warhol’s soup cans, putting it in the index is not even necessary. The print could never go to auction in a traditional showroom, which means tracking it will be an infinitely difficult task. Law enforcement will be forced to rely heavily on anonymous tips and confidential informants, which is why they have drawn attention to their tip line with a cash incentive.

However, that incentive may not seem justified from all quarters. Why is the FBI designating such a massive cash prize to the Warhol paintings when it could donate the same prize to informants who call in regarding violent actions or organized crime? Why is the FBI designating that money to prizes at all when it could be using it to finance operations and hire the best possible analysts (instead of potentially losing them to the private sector)? The Art Crime Team would respond that stealing art can be equated with stealing history, taking away the identity and history of a given people. This argument holds up when considering the team’s successful recovery of artifacts stolen from archaeological sites and public museums, but when examining private collections, we come to gray area. Should the government be tasked with providing a reward for the theft of a privately owned painting or should that responsibility fall to the owner, who has the ability to insure the painting?

On its website, the Art Crime Team has listed several of its successes, including the case of “approximately 100 paintings stolen from a Florida family’s art collection in a fine art storage facility. This collection included works by Picasso, Rothko, Matisse and others that were recovered from Chicago, New York and Tokyo.” Stealing a painting from a venue like the Springfield Art Museum does impact the community’s ability to access and enjoy art but if it was stolen from a private collection, the public would have just as little access to the artwork after the theft as they did before. The reward offered in the case of the Warhol prints may turn up valuable information, but it could also be a waste of government funds that will do virtually nothing to return the prints. 

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Should the FBI Offer Reward Money for Stolen Art? appeared first on Law Street.

Ever since the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage last summer, contentious debates over how states can protect the religious freedoms of businesses and organizations have been underway. States like Indiana, Missouri, and West Virginia have been proposing religious liberty laws that have led to strong reactions on all sides of the aisle.

On Wednesday morning, after an impressive 39-hour filibuster, Republicans in the Missouri Senate voted to end the discussion on a bill that could allow religiously affiliated organizations to refuse to participate in activities that could be considered condoning or participating in same-sex marriage. The bill, Senate Joint Resolution 39, proposes an amendment to Article I of Missouri’s state constitution that would prohibit penalizing organizations for refusing services if they go against the organization’s religious beliefs.

Democratic Senators in Missouri used their filibuster to stall the bill from going to a vote while harping on topics “including other bills, Donald Trump, slick roads, soft drink ads in foreign countries, and ‘Jesus sightings’ in foreign objects,” an NPR affiliate reported. After Republican senators voted to end the filibuster, they subsequently voted in favor of placing the resolution on the ballot this November in a vote of 23-9. The bill still has to go to the house before the resolution can be placed on the upcoming ballot, at which point Missouri voters would decide on the amendment themselves.

Bills like SJR 39 have been popping up left and right across the country as local governments try to protect  people’s First Amendment right to religious freedom. But these bills have sparked a lot of controversies. Why? Many people claim that they are laws focused on discriminating against gay people, instead of protecting religious liberty as they claim.

Around a year ago, Indiana passed a law similar to the Missouri resolution that allows businesses to cite their adherence to religious beliefs as a defense in civil suits–allowing them to refuse service to particular people or groups if doing so violates their religious beliefs. One of the biggest concerns about Indiana’s law, in particular, is its vague wording and the ambiguous nature of its purpose. While Indiana Governor Mike Pence claimed that the bill was in no way about discrimination, it is really difficult to differentiate between the intention behind the bill and its impact until you can see how it plays out in practice.

Celebrities have been jumping to defend gay marriage in comedic videos poking fun of religious freedom laws and tweets supporting the movement to prevent sexuality-based discrimination.

If you really and truly want pizza for your gay wedding in Indiana… We will make it for you. @donald_faison pic.twitter.com/y91qIkVoyt

— Zach Braff (@zachbraff) April 3, 2015

And, of course, what would a discussion of policy be without acknowledging its impact on the current presidential race. Candidates are using these religious freedom laws as talking points to entice voters, especially those on the right of our political spectrum. After Indiana’s law passed but similar bills were shut down in other states, Ted Cruz said:

On my first day of office, I will instruct the Department of Justice and the IRS and every federal agency that the persecution of religious liberty ends today

Yes, it’s tempting to want to stand up for religious freedom in our country, especially when that freedom is guaranteed by the Constitution, but when the fiercest and most frequent claims of persecution come from middle-aged, white catholic men, it kind of confuses the issue.

Is baking a pizza for a gay wedding really the crux of an American war on religion? Probably not. Should we be watching out for religious minorities to protect their ability to coexist in our complex religious landscape? Definitely. Is enacting bills to protect a cake baker from cake baking for gay couples really the hard hitting way to protect the minority religions that are actually being persecuted? Almost definitively not.

Let’s follow in the footsteps of West Virginia, who voted down a religious liberties bill after backlash claiming that it was discriminatory. And Georgia, who dismissed a bill when their Republican governor acknowledged it to be unnecessary for protecting religious freedom. It’s time to to support government action that–while standing up for freedom of religion and beliefs–ultimately upholds protection from discrimination for all of our citizens.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post It’s Time to Talk About Religious Liberty Laws appeared first on Law Street.

Johnson’s Baby Powder is a staple in many American households. Not only does it soften babies’ bums and prevent diaper rash, but it can also be used by adults as a great deodorizer, dry shampoo, and ant repeller. But before you begin bathing in this magical powdery cure-all, you might like to know that it may also be good for causing cancer, according to a recent Missouri jury ruling.

A St. Louis jury ordered consumer goods manufacturer Johnson & Johnson to pay $75 million to the family of a woman whose death from ovarian cancer was linked to her use of the company’s talc-based Baby Powder and Shower-to-Shower products.

The civil suit by Jacqueline Fox, who lived in Birmingham, Alabama, was part of a larger case involving 60 plaintiffs. A St. Louis jury awarded $10 million in actual damages and $65 million in punitive damages to Fox’s family after her son, Martin Salter, took over as plaintiff following her October 2015 death. Fox had used Johnson & Johnson’s talc-based products for 35 years before being diagnosed three years ago with ovarian cancer.

Since Fox’s case was the first to come to trial, it will likely set a precedent for the other cases still to come. According to Reuters, about 1,000 cases have already been filed against Johnson & Johnson in Missouri state court , and another 200 in New Jersey.

In a press conference Jere Beasley, a lawyer for Fox’s family, said they were “able to prove statistically that 1,500 women have died every year from the association of talc and ovarian cancer.” The legal team was also able to prove that Johnson & Johnson had prior knowledge that its hygienic talc was unsafe. An internal memo dating back to September 1997 was submitted into evidence, that showed a company media consultant suggesting that “anybody who denies” the risk of using hygienic talc and ovarian cancer is “denying the obvious in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

Despite the jury’s outcome, there is still some debate over whether or not talc powder is a direct cause of ovarian cancer. Talcum powder in the past often used talc containing asbestos, which are known carcinogens, whereas modern powder does not. Therefore it’s possible that some people may have developed cancer with contaminated talc in the past.

According to USA Today, Carol Goodrich, a Johnson & Johnson spokeswoman, said the company stands by the talc used in all “global products” and they are “evaluating” their legal options. Goodrich said in a statement,

The recent U.S. verdict goes against decades of sound science proving the safety of talc as a cosmetic ingredient in multiple products, and while we sympathize with the family of the plaintiff, we strongly disagree with the outcome.

The huge dollar sign attached to this payout can only mean good things for the now hundreds of plaintiffs still waiting to go to trial. But if  Johnson & Johnson continues to lose, these damages could have dire consequences for the company.

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 Johnson & Johnson Ordered to Pay $72 Million in Talc Powder Cancer Case appeared first on Law Street.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced it will be filing suit against the city of Ferguson, Missouri, after the city went back on a negotiated deal that would help reform the criminal justice system in the beleaguered St. Louis suburb.

This is the latest move in Ferguson in the 18 months since Michael Brown was shot and killed by a white police officer, Darren Wilson. After the nationwide protests that followed, Ferguson was investigated by the DOJ. That investigation yielded a revelation about civil rights abuses at practically every level of Ferguson’s criminal justice system, including the consistent use of excessive force by police officers against the city’s Black residents, and that the courts inappropriately focused on “making money” rather than ensuring citizens’ safety.

After the release of that report, the DOJ sat down with Ferguson officials in an attempt to hammer out a deal that would reform the city’s criminal justice system. It was announced last month that deal was reached, and just this week city officials voted for it, but with seven pretty serious amendments, citing serious concerns about costs to a city that is struggling financially as is. Ferguson Mayor James Knowles explained the decision to back away from the agreement, according to CBS News:

Knowles said the seven amendments were formulated after the analysis showed the deal was so expensive it could lead to dissolution of Ferguson. The analysis suggested that the first-year cost of the agreement would be $2.2 million to $3.7 million, with second- and third-year costs between $1.8 million and $3 million in each year.

However, Attorney General Loretta Lynch fought back against the changes, stating that, “their decision leaves us no further choice.” As a result, the DOJ is filing a civil rights lawsuit against Ferguson. This doesn’t come as a surprise–Lynch has previously threatened to file suit if Ferguson didn’t comply with the DOJ’s requests.

Ferguson’s decision to fight a lawsuit rather than spend the money to make necessary changes to its criminal justice system may seem counterintuitive, but the city seems to think paying those legal fees will be cheaper than actually making real reform. It’s a calculated gamble, however, given that the Justice Department doesn’t seem willing to let go over reforming the city’s broken criminal justice system without a tough fight.

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 DOJ Sues Ferguson, Missouri Over Police Reform appeared first on Law Street.

Most people don’t really like jury duty. Turns out that Senator Claire McCaskill, a Democrat from Missouri, is not most people. The senior U.S. Senator from Missouri and lawyer took to Twitter today to live tweet her jury duty experiences, and proclaimed that serving on a jury is on her “bucket list.”

McCaskill’s Twitter feed included tips for potential jurors, including seat choice, lunch recommendations, and fashion advice:

As usual Callow has succinct advice. “@publiceyestl Sit near an outlet.” Check. pic.twitter.com/QnfertUqZZ

— Claire McCaskill (@clairecmc) January 25, 2016

I recommend dark casual slacks and gray cardigan. #whatimwearinghttps://t.co/6cZEOvQrCv

— Claire McCaskill (@clairecmc) January 25, 2016

I brought some salad and hard boiled eggs from home. #preparedhttps://t.co/8AxnEkMCfK

— Claire McCaskill (@clairecmc) January 25, 2016

McCaskill also shared an amusing series of tweets about the control of the TV in the waiting area for the jurors:

This is gonna get https://t.co/AGxJhnqDyc in the room where we’re waiting.Someone for the remote. Now what channel? #pleasegodnotfoxnews

— Claire McCaskill (@clairecmc) January 25, 2016

Are you crazy? No way I want the remote. I work for these people… https://t.co/3j8X28gLbV — Claire McCaskill (@clairecmc) January 25, 2016

Remote person settled on Comedy Central. Not bad, kinda safe choice. But noticed one woman grimacing over off color jokes. #juryroomdrama — Claire McCaskill (@clairecmc) January 25, 2016

Eventually, McCaskill did get called into the back for a voir dire–essentially both sides questioning her to determine if she’ll be on the jury–but it’s unclear whether or not she’ll actually make it on to the jury itself. Given that she’s a lawyer in addition to being a U.S. Senator, it’s unlikely.   

A lawyer I know just walked by me in hallway, did double take, said hello and “they don’t want lawyers”

— Claire McCaskill (@clairecmc) January 25, 2016

After receiving her JD from the University of Missouri, McCaskill worked as a prosecutor in Kansas City, as well as in private practice, and she clerked for a judge on the Missouri Court of Appeals. Lawyers often exclude those with legal backgrounds for their juries however, due to perceived biases that could sway the juror’s view of the case, whether consciously or not, or that other jurors could defer to them because of their legal background.

We’ll have to stay tuned to McCaskill’s Twitter feed to see if she ended up being selected, but either way, she found a fun way to pass the time while she waited.

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 Senator Claire McCaskill Live Tweets Jury Duty appeared first on Law Street.

A controversial new bill that would have banned Missouri student athletes from striking was abruptly withdrawn Wednesday after public backlash called the restrictive legislation unconstitutional.

Republican state Representative Rick Brattin withdrew the bill (without comment) that he and co-sponsor state Representative Kurt Bahr had submitted Friday. If approved, the legislation would have revoked a scholarship from any student athlete that “calls, incites, supports, or participates in any strike or concerted refusal to play a scheduled game.”

The proposal was in direct response to a massive strike at the University of Missouri, where over 30 football players refused to participate in any football activities until the university’s System President Tim Wolfe resigned. Wolfe had been deemed unfit by students after mishandling a series of racist incidents on campus.

The team arrived at the decision to strike after graduate student Jonathan Butler’s life-threatening hunger strike failed to provoke any action from the university. On November 7, Sophomore safety Anthony Sherrils announced the strike on Twitter in a message that read,

The athletes of color on the University of Missouri football team truly believe ‘Injustice Anywhere is a threat to Justice Everywhere’ We will no longer participate in any football related activities until President Tim Wolfe resigns or is removed due to his negligence toward marginalized students’ experiences. WE ARE UNITED

We’re black. Black is powerful. Our struggle may look different, but we are all #ConcernedStudent1950 pic.twitter.com/obCjSWCFVY

— HeMadeAKing (@1Sherrils_2MIZZ) November 8, 2015

Three days later Wolfe resigned, and as a result the team did not miss a scheduled a game.

Bahr told the Kansas City Star that the incident prompted him to re-examine the relationship between student-athletes and the universities where they play. Bahr said,

Kansas State Rep. Brandon Ellington, however, disagreed. The Democratic legislative black caucus chair said in a statement to the AP, “this unconstitutional legislation never should have been filed in the first place.” Ellington also applauded Brattin’s decision to withdraw the bill saying,

Seeking to punish those who peacefully take a stand against racial injustice violates not only the constitutional right to free speech but the values we hold as Missourians. Given the overwhelmingly negative response to his misguided and offensive proposal, I hope Representative Brattin finally understands that.

But the unfortunate thing is, Brattin and Bahr will probably never understand how offensive the proposal was. These men attempted to take away students’ fundamental rights to freedom of speech and assembly, because they’d rather Missouri players be on the field getting physical than standing up for something political. If they keep this up, Missouri may run into some issues recruiting quality players in the future.

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 Missouri Lawmaker Withdraws Bill to Ban Student-Athletes From Striking appeared first on Law Street.

Ah, Missouri, the Show Me state. Let me just jump right into this edition of The Dumbest Laws in the United States. In Missouri, you can’t honk the horn of a car that’s not yours unless you have the owner’s permission. Be sure to ask if it’s okay to honk the driver’s horn if you are the passenger in a car and feel offended by something another driver did. Furthermore, one may not “attempt to manipulate any of the levers, starting device, brakes, or machinery thereof, or set the machinery in motion” if you do not own said machinery. Also while on the topic of cars, Missouri has a law simply stating that it is illegal to speed. In case anyone wasn’t aware.

I can’t honk the driver’s horn? I can’t SPEED? WHAT?

In Colombia, Missouri, drinking in a bar between the hours of 2:00am and 6:00am is strictly prohibited. It would be a difficult task seeing as how most bars close at 2:00am. Perhaps it’d make more sense to ban breaking into closed bars and drinking inside. In University City, owning a PVC pipe is illegal as it is considered drug paraphernalia. Perhaps too many students were converting the pipes into bongs. In University City, yard sales located in one’s front yard are also banned. The law does not mention sales in back yards, however, so perhaps doing so is permitted?

It frightens me to think of what instances prompted Illinois to create such a law, but the state has one banning sex with a corpse. Sex offenders there are prohibited from taking part in holiday festivities such as passing out candy to children or acting as Santa Claus. I mean, makes sense sort of, especially for registered sex offenders who are pedophiles.

Both those laws up there? Messed up.

One law listed as “stupid” actually makes a lot of sense to me. Individuals younger than 21 may drink alcohol if they are enrolled in a culinary program. I mean, if this weren’t allowed, how else would aspiring chefs know about wine pairings or using alcohol in cooking?

In my oh-so-humble opinion, another “dumb law” that is actually very sensible is one that prohibits hanging dangling objects from rear-view mirrors. I find them personally distracting while driving but maybe that’s  just me.

In Illinois’ famous capitol city, Chicago, citizens with an expired city sticker on their cars can receive a fine of $120. Also, all businesses “entering into contracts with the city must sift through their records and report any business they had dealing with slaves during the era of slavery.”

Citizens of Collinsville, Illinois must have gotten sick of seeing young men whose boxers peek over their pants while walking around. Or perhaps they got sick of seeing a few too many plumber cracks. Yes, in Collinsville, wearing sagging pants is illegal, so tighten up those belts!

Watch those pants, Gramps!

Marisa Mostek

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

The post The Dumbest Laws in the United States: Missouri and Illinois appeared first on Law Street.

An old FOX News interview with an unemployed Californian surfer appears to be the inspiration for one Missouri Republican lawmaker’s new initiative that would strike some delicious foods like steak and seafood from welfare recipients’ menus.

It all began with an interview FOX News did in 2013 with Jason Greenslate, who unapologetically bragged about using the government assistance program SNAP to receive $200 dollars a month in taxpayer money for “luxury” food items including coconut water, sushi, and lobster. And because it’s FOX, the network used this one slacker’s statements like “this is the way I want to live and I don’t really see anything changing” and “it’s free food; it’s awesome” to support some Republican conjecture that all poor people abuse their government assistance.

You can watch the full FOX segment below.

That segment may have been a bit of inspiration for Missouri State Representative Rick Brattin, who according to the Washington Post, has proposed a bill that if passed would stop people like Greenslate from abusing the system by banning the purchase of “cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood or steak” with food stamps. Brattin said:

The intention of the bill is to get the food stamp program back to its original intent, which is nutrition assistance.

What’s interesting about that statement is Brattin’s interpretation of what qualifies as “nutrition assistance.” Eliminating unhealthy foods like chips, cookies, energy drinks, and pop I can understand, but why seafood and steaks? First of all seafood has been proven to be a healthy staple in a balanced diet. Take tuna, for example,  which happens to be a highly cost effective form of protein. And when it comes to steaks, there are so many different kinds ranging in size, fattiness, and cost, that eliminating the entire food group just sounds too vague to be useful.

These protein add ons to his bill seem to stem from other issues that don’t involve a lack of nutrition, but rather a problem with the buyers themselves. Brattin was quoted saying:

I have seen people purchasing filet mignons and crab legs with their EBT cards. When I can’t afford it on my pay, I don’t want people on the taxpayer’s dime to afford those kinds of foods either.

Now according to the Washington Post, a household of one can qualify for “up to $194 dollars a month, or fewer than $7 dollars day, as part of SNAP.” That number can essentially double with every added family member according to the Department of Agriculture. Seven dollars a day is obviously not enough for a daily lobster dinner, but depending on how the family has budgeting their finances over the month who’s to say they can’t have a “luxury” treat once in a while.

Every case is different, and while surely a few individuals are bound to abuse the system, eliminating these foods for everyone is hardly an effective means of changing that. The bill is still needs some “clarifying” according to Brattin, but if passed in its current form, this measure will be just another way to continue to stigmatize food assistance programs and discriminate against the people who use them.

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 Missouri Lawmaker: No Steaks or Seafood for Food Stamp Recipients appeared first on Law Street.

Logic tells us that if two wrongs don’t make a right, then many, many wrongs can’t possibly make any sort of right either. That’s all I could think about when I saw the coverage of the shooting of two police officers in Ferguson, Missouri Wednesday night.

It’s the latest event in a saga that in some ways began this August with the police shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown, and in some ways has been happening for years. It’s sparked conversations on police brutality and militarization, racism, systemic biases against young black men in our society, the justice system, and so much more. But even though those conversations are happening on a national level, what’s happening on the ground isn’t quite as academic or theoretical. It’s real, it’s scary, and honestly, last night’s events show that it probably isn’t going to get better anytime soon.

Ferguson’s police chief Tom Jackson resigned. That was probably inevitable after the release of a pretty damning Department of Justice report that highlighted serious racial biases and constitutional breaks in Ferguson. For a more extensive look at the main takeaways of that report, check out fellow Law Streeter Alexis Evans’ article here.

After Jackson resigned, a rally started at the Ferguson police department. While the protesters were obviously pleased that the head of the Ferguson police department had resigned, they didn’t think it was enough to stem clear instances of racial profiling, bias, and intimidation within the force. Protesters actually advocated for the mayor of Ferguson, James Knowles III, to step down as well. Around midnight, those protests took a turn when gunshots rang out. Witnesses say there were four in all. Two found targets–one in the shoulder of a 41-year-old St. Louis County officer, and another in the face of a 32-year-old officer from the nearby town of Webster Groves. Both were in serious condition, but were recently released from the hospital.

Details of who exactly fired those shots remain a little fuzzy. Police have stated that they came from the cluster of protesters, but the protesters themselves are saying that they came from further away on a nearby hill. Police are saying that they have leads, but other than that, what will happen seems up in the air.

In light of the incident, St. Louis County Police and the Mississippi Highway Patrol are going to be taking over controlling the protests in the hopes that things don’t become more violent.

Many around the country have condemned the actions of the shooter. Attorney General Eric Holder, for example, stated:

This heinous assault on two brave law enforcement officers was inexcusable and repugnant. I condemn violence against any public safety officials in the strongest terms, and the Department of Justice will never accept any threats or violence directed at those who serve and protect our communities. … Such senseless acts of violence threaten the very reforms that nonviolent protesters in Ferguson and around the country have been working towards for the past several months.

Despite the fact that new forces are being brought in, I’m not sure it’s safe to say that issues in Ferguson are going to get any better. This is turmoil that has been stewing for years, and Michael Brown’s death just set it boiling. While the protesters have been mostly peaceful, there are always people who do bad things–people who commit those wrongs that can never add up to a right. Hopefully, real dialogue and reform will start happening soon.

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 Police Officers Shot in Ferguson Show Tensions Haven’t Abated appeared first on Law Street.

In light of recent high profile police killings such as those of 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri last August, Eric Garner in Staten Island, and 12-year-old Tamir Rice in Cleveland, Ohio, a national discussion has developed about the force used by police officers against American citizens. In the most recent development in that discussion, President Obama called for all police shootings to be reported to the federal government so that kind of information is readily available and transparent.

This call comes after Obama’s December 2014 recommendation to establish the “Task Force on 21st Century Policing.” According to the White House,

The task force will examine how to strengthen public trust and foster strong relationships between local law enforcement and the communities that they protect, while also promoting effective crime reduction.

The task force will engage with federal, state, tribal, and local officials; technical advisors; young leaders; and nongovernmental organizations to provide a transparent process to engage with the public.

The task force is chaired by Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey and Laurie Robinson, a criminology professor at George Mason University who was formerly an Assistant Attorney General for the DOJ office of Justice Programs.

That task force has now come back to the President with its recommendations–the suggestion that police forces be required to report their shootings is just one of them. This comes after multiple high profile officials had made similar statements about the necessity of recording the incidences of police shootings. Attorney General Eric Holder expressed a similar sentiment in mid January when he stated in a speech,

I’ve heard from a number of people who have called on policymakers to ensure better record-keeping on injuries and deaths that occur at the hands of police. I’ve also spoken with law enforcement leaders — including the leadership of the Fraternal Order of Police — who have urged elected officials to consider strategies for collecting better data on officer fatalities. Today, my response to these legitimate concerns is simple: We need to do both.

FBI head James Comey made similar statements in a speech at Georgetown University a few weeks ago when he stated, “It’s ridiculous that I can’t tell you how many people were shot by the police in this country last week, last year, the last decade – it’s ridiculous.”

There isn’t any information yet about how the reporting of police shootings and force will be handled–whether it will go through the FBI or some other agency is yet to be seen.

This recommendation from the task force comes as that conversation about police shootings continues in the U.S. Last night, a video of a Los Angeles Police Department officer fatally shooting a homeless man went viral.

Here’s the video, although fair warning–it’s pretty brutal and graphic:

Officers claim that it was a struggle over one of the cop’s guns, and it very well may have been, but either way it’s a disturbing video in which deadly force is used very quickly. The conversation about police shootings in the United States is very far from over–a database may be able to be used to help make that conversation even more productive.

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 Task Force Calls for Police Shootings to be Reported to Federal Government appeared first on Law Street.

It looks like a toy, resembling a large ping pong ball, but this bright orange device is actually the newest “less lethal” ammunition option for police in pressure situations. Developed by a company out of California called Alternative Ballistics, The Alternative is marketed as an easily accessible attachment for police officers to use that doesn’t actually penetrate its target, only stalls it.

This week, five Ferguson, Missouri police officers will begin to train using the device, with the department planning to introduce it to its entire force of 55 officers.

Ferguson police first in U.S. to test new ‘less-lethal’ bullet called “the Alternative” http://t.co/e27NlZ9mmm

— Kirsten Danis (@kirstendanis) February 4, 2015

This “less lethal” option would allow police in situations where lethal force is already presumably justified to cause their target serious pain with less internal injury. In seconds the device can be mounted on the top of the gun without any obstruction to the sight of its operator. According to the company’s website:

Once the weapon is fired, the bullet embeds itself inside the projectile with no chance of escaping, simultaneously transferring the bullet’s energy, propelling it directly at the target. Once the bullet is fired from the gun into the projectile they permanently become one unit. The docking unit will automatically eject from the weapon and the firearm returns to its normal function before it cycles in a new round.

Since the gun returns to its normal functionality after the one-time round is released, officers can still use their weapons for lethal force if necessary.

You can watch a video of The Alternative in action below.

The main point of The Alternative is that it gives its user a choice. A choice that may have come in handy in the controversial shooting of Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager who was fatally shot by a white police officer. Brown is just one of several victims who has thrust American police procedures under a microscope.This is likely the reason why the Ferguson Police Department is the first in the U.S. to test the $45-per-unit device.

According to the Washington Post, Al Eickhoff, assistant chief of the Ferguson police, had begun researching less lethal options about a month after Brown’s fatal shooting by now-former Ferguson Officer Darren Wilson on August 9, 2014.

But is this a viable option? Those seconds it takes for an officer to pull the device out from a side holster and place it on the barrel of a gun could be life threatening. Steve Ijames, a former Springfield, Missouri police major and training expert thinks that may be the case, telling the Post:

I am all about less lethal. What bothers me is we will allow an officer to face immediate deadly jeopardy with a less-lethal round. Deadly force is the most likely thing to repel deadly force.

The Alternative is hardly the only non-lethal option on the market. Officers have an arsenal of weapons such as tasers, bean bag-loaded shotguns, pepper-filled pellets, rubber-coated bullets, and stun grenades from which to choose. But if this ping pong-looking pellet takes off, it could end up being a favorite.

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 Ferguson Police Testing “Less Lethal” Bullet Alternative appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been a few weeks since the announcement that the Ferguson grand jury would not indict Officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown to death. It’s been about a week since a Staten Island grand jury announced that Officer Daniel Pantaleo would not be indicted for the death of Eric Garner. Protests have continued in many major cities, and everyone is still talking about the injustices inherent in our judicial system. #ICan’tBreathe, a reference to Garner’s last words as he died after being put in a chokehold by Panteleo, is still trending on Twitter as I write this.

Now, celebrities are starting to get involved. A few nights ago, Kobe Bryant and other members of the Los Angeles Lakers wore “I Can’t Breathe” t-shirts before their game.

Kobe and the rest of the #Lakers wearing #ICantBreathe T-Shirts during warm ups ( pic via @lakers ) pic.twitter.com/kd2OlxrZfm

— Jeff G. (@TheSportsDude) December 10, 2014

The Lakers weren’t the first team to participate in protests. The St. Louis Rams, shortly after the Ferguson grand jury decision, walked out onto the field with their hands in the “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” gesture that has been a symbol of the Ferguson protests:

Rams players said they ‘absolutely’ would repeat ‘Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” gesture http://t.co/lxshSRD8wrpic.twitter.com/H4Z71QQWau

— Sportsnet (@Sportsnet) December 4, 2014

Rams player Davin Joseph also kept his support going by writing “I Can’t Breathe” on his shoes before a recent game:

R.I.P Eric Garner pic.twitter.com/i84grny7pR

— Davin Joseph (@DavinJoseph75) December 7, 2014

Detroit Lions player Reggie Bush also showed his support with a homemade “I Can’t Breathe” shirt:

ICYMI: Reggie Bush supports Eric Garner with message on shirt http://t.co/N6oDRFTcQD pic.twitter.com/LqMsc2eCsx — Josh Katzenstein (@jkatzenstein) December 7, 2014

It’s not just professional athletes who are showing their support; other celebrities have chosen to throw their weight around as well and bring attention to the Brown and Garner-inspired protests. Singer/songwriter John Legend and his wife Chrissy Teigen, a model, paid for an entire fleet of food trucks to serve protesters in Lincoln Square in New York on Sunday. 

.@johnlegend and his wife pay for a food truck to feed #EricGarner supporters at #NYC protest. http://t.co/HYLPqHTFZxpic.twitter.com/0JJqqEuIIu — Jassiel Perez (@fl_dreamer) December 8, 2014

Finally, members of Congress have shown their support. Four members have done the “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” gesture on the floor of the House of Representatives: New York Reps. Hakeem Jeffries and Yvette Clarke, and Texas Reps. Sheila Jackson Lee and Al Green. 

Four Members of Congress do ‘Hands Up, Don’t Shoot’ gesture on House floor. http://t.co/EMPkdTk6otpic.twitter.com/YanQI5RzJ4 — NYDN Politics (@NYDNPolitics) December 2, 2014

Although many celebrities have made their opinions known about the lack of indictments in these cases, these athletes, celebrities, and politicians have stood out. They’re in good company–it’s only by bringing attention to these issues that we can ever hope to enact change. 

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 #HandsUpDontShoot #ICantBreathe: Celebrities Weigh In appeared first on Law Street.

The decisions by grand juries not to indict the police officers who killed Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri and Eric Garner in Staten Island, New York–both unarmed black men–have sparked a visceral reaction from many Americans coast to coast. In the case of Garner, the reaction transcended partisan politics, with conservative voices such as Glenn Beck expressing disbelief at how an unarmed man being choked to death on camera was not enough to even start a criminal proceeding against his killer, Officer Daniel Pantaleo.

On the other hand, there are those who reject the idea that the system failed these victims and their families, and that these outcomes are indicative of a larger institutional design that disproportionately victimizes black people. They tend to view these cases as “isolated incidents,” unfortunate yes, but perhaps unavoidable in a society where police are confronted with violent crime on a daily basis. Inevitably, they veer into defaming the victim’s character. “It’s not like Michael Brown was an angel. Did you see the video of him robbing that store just before the shooting?” I have even heard some version of these quotes uttered by people very close to me, whose opinions I hold in high regard. Yet, here they are apologizing for murderers.

It is not difficult to see the striking parallel between this behavior and the victim-blaming that surrounds cases of rape and domestic abuse involving women. “Well she was wearing a short skirt” “Wasn’t she drunk?” “Why did she go back to him?” A system designed to protect men at the expense of women will scrutinize the woman’s actions to see what she did to bring such misfortune upon herself, rather than investigating the criminal actions of the male perpetrator. This, in turn, engenders a deep distrust of the system among women and explains why a majority of sexual assaults go unreported.

Similarly, a system designed to protect white lives at the expense of black lives makes it acceptable to blame the black victim of a senseless murder. Whether 18–year-old Brown or 43-year-old Garner were “angels” before their lives were cut short bears no relevance on whether their killers should be held accountable for their untimely deaths. Those who feel these are appropriate counterarguments to an issue that’s been blown out of proportion by the media are products of this system and these are misplaced attempts at appearing “fair and balanced.” That Officers Wilson and Pantaleo may never face a public trial for their actions means that the system worked as it was designed. Unfortunately, this also means that the distrust of law enforcement in black communities was only compounded. Obama’s call for $263 million for body cameras on police may increase transparency, but trust will elude us until we can seek justice in a system untainted by vestiges of the racial caste system that this country was built on.

Kesav Wable

Kesav Wable is an attorney practicing in New York, as well as an accomplished actor and writer. His short film For Flow, an HBO American Black Film Finalist in 2011, was broadcast on HBO/Cinemax, and he continues to develop scripts for the stage and screen. Contact Kesav at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Victim Blaming Nurtures an Unjust System appeared first on Law Street.

Racism still exists in America. I see it every day, and having the increasingly common experience of being a white minority in the city I live in, I know that racism is not merely restricted to Caucasians. Yeah, I said it. Every race can be racist. Every race has stereotypes associated with other ethnicities, and every race has prejudices against those ethnicities based on years of perceived oppression. It does not matter if you are Caucasian, African, Asian, Mexican, or South American–you have experienced racism at some point in your life.

But the race issue is exacerbated by the media and by those who think racism is simply one-sided, i.e. white against every other color. Which is why cases like what happened in Ferguson, frankly, piss me off.

I agree that police officers should be held accountable their actions, and my thoughts are with Michael Brown’s parents, as no one should have to lose a child. But as their story spread and grew it became less and less about a cop shooting an 18 year old 12 times and more about a white man shooting a black man. Thieves and looters, under the guise of “protest” took the opportunity the media gave them and began destroying property, stealing, becoming physically violent toward police officers and each other, all in the name of justice for a black teenager. The protests fueled the media frenzy and the whole cycle repeated and blew up.

Again, Brown’s actions in the surveillance video above, which was taken from just prior to him being killed, do not justify him getting shot a dozen times. But painting him–as some stories did–as a martyr and a saint is a serious over-exaggeration. Yet citizens of Ferguson took the race part of the story–not the legal part–and made him their mascot.

We will never know for certain what happened that day after Brown left the store. What I can assume, though, is that if the officer responsible had been African American, we would not have heard about it. If Officer Darren Wilson and Michael Brown had both been white, we would not have heard about it. Had the races been reversed–black officer shoots white teen–you can bet shit would have hit the fan just the same.

The truth is, according to the 2013 FBI Crime Report: 83 percent of white homicide victims were killed by other whites. Ninety percent of black homicide victims were killed by other blacks. We don’t hear about those cases. The reason this homicide got so much attention? Race. Plain and simple. It would have been more understandable if the news and the protests had focused on a cop abusing his power, but that is not the story we got. Police officers, historically, have often gotten away with things that would have been illegal for regular citizens, regardless of race. Why couldn’t the news have focused on that injustice?

Michael Brown’s story got blown out of proportion. Criminals used his name as an excuse for heinous acts, we were hounded for months with news stories focusing on never-ending protests of criminal behavior, and his parents were left to mourn by dealing with the violence committed in their son’s name. Violence they did not and do not condone. All this because the police officer happened to be white.

Racism is a problem, but to help alleviate that problem we have to stop assuming that every act one race commits against another is rooted in prejudice. We have to stop assuming that Caucasians are the only people who still associate certain races with certain stereotypes. We have to stop calling each other “white” or “black.” Acknowledge one another as people, not as a skin color, and the country can finally be rid of this horrible practice.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Racism: It’s on All of Us appeared first on Law Street.

If you live in a major metropolitan area, or honestly even a small one, there’s a very decent chance that you’ll see protests today. You probably saw some last night as well. For any of you who have been living under a particularly comfortable and sheltered rock lately, the protests focus on the cases of two black men killed by police officers. Michael Brown, an 18 year old in Ferguson, Missouri, was shot and killed by Officer Darren Wilson on August 9, 2014. On November 24 it was announced that a grand jury had decided not to indict Wilson. Next, there’s the case of Eric Garner in New York, who was killed by Officer Daniel Pantaleo on July 17, 2014. Pantaleo was filmed putting Garner in a chokehold, even though that tactic is banned by the New York Police Department.

Here’s an example of the “hands up don’t shoot” gesture being used in protest:

"Hands up, dont shoot!!" #NYC #FergusonDecision #justice pic.twitter.com/OwMfX72v4H

— Arnaud Montagard (@arnaudmontagard) November 26, 2014

And Garner’s last words, which have become a rallying cry:

I almost can't read this. So painful. So ugly. #ICantBreathe pic.twitter.com/KVVbK6Gf0A

— Tessa Francis (@tessafrancis) December 4, 2014

Those are the roots of the protests, the catalysts. But the protests aren’t just about these two men. They’re about the greater issue–or more appropriately issues. I’m not trying to make an exhaustive list here but these protests are about the national conversations we need to have on racism, racial profiling, police violence, police militarization, etc, etc, etc. The protests are about a broken system–the deaths of Brown and Garner are tragic symptoms of this system.

The protests have been taking place all over the United States. New York, where Garner was killed, was especially busy. There was a “die-in” at Grand Central Station yesterday evening; a “die-in” is when protesters lie on the ground, silently.

Hundreds of people staged a "die-in" at Grand Central in NYC after #EricGarner decision. http://t.co/che6tRNyli pic.twitter.com/8cNl2DsEUw

— Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) December 4, 2014

Protesters marched through New York City and temporarily blocked traffic at major transportation hubs, including the Lincoln Tunnel. One of the protesters explained her motivations, saying:

Every 28 hours a young black man is killed by police. Only 2 percent of police are indicted. Those numbers are crazy. It’s telling young black men that their lives don’t matter and their deaths can be passed over.

Protests were also very active in our nation’s capital. Last night, protesters flooded Dupont Circle and stopped traffic, as well as at some other locations in Northwest Washington. Today there will be a protest over by the Department of Justice at 4:00pm.

Protesters blocking DC intersection to protest non-indictment in #Garner case. Protest is peaceful. Cops standing by pic.twitter.com/j0JSd9B62O

— Athena Jones (@AthenaCNN) December 4, 2014

Cities all over the country look like this, and I’m going to leave these pictures and videos here, because I think they say more than words ever could:

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Philly protest at Tree Lighting event at City Hall #FergusonPHL #BlackLivesMatter #HandsUpDontShoot: http://t.co/FpDJKfBylC #EricGarner

— Daryel Jay (@DaryelJay) December 4, 2014

Oakland, California:

#EricGarner protest in Oakland. #NoJusticeNoPeace #BlackLivesMatter pic.twitter.com/0yxNmnJQQM

— Diana Saverin (@dianasaverin) December 4, 2014

Seattle, Washington

Seattle protests no indictment for NYPD officer whose chokehold led to death of #EricGarner >> http://t.co/nXEihNYg4p pic.twitter.com/I6PZktVbge

— KIRO 7 (@KIRO7Seattle) December 4, 2014

New York, New York

Garner widow on husband's killer: 'No I, don't accept his apologies’ http://t.co/NLncfA5Mft pic.twitter.com/pbkP6TCoVA

— Chicago Tribune (@chicagotribune) December 4, 2014

Those are faces of change. Faces tired of the way that our system has been failing. Faces that have had enough. Faces that deserve to be, finally, listened to.

If you’re interested in joining a protest, here’s where they’re happening today. They aren’t going to end anytime soon, because this crisis clearly isn’t ending anytime soon either.

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 #HandsUpDontShoot #ICantBreathe: Americans Continue Protests appeared first on Law Street.

Last Monday night St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch delivered a combative 25-minute address in which he seemed to blame social media for some of the fallout between the death of Michael Brown on August 9, 2014 and the announcement that police officer Darren Wilson would not be indicted for shooting him.

McCulloch focused his attention on the role of social media covering the story, blaming it for misleading the public and creating a martyr out of Brown from the start. He was particularly cutting to the people of Ferguson who witnessed or didn’t witness the event saying that, “within minutes various accounts of the incident began appearing on social media.” He continued on to say that the posts, mostly on Twitter, were “filled with speculation, and little, if any solid, accurate information.” His statement did little to quell the fire on social media platforms like Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook. In fact, it might have ignited a deeper fury in the hearts and minds of those who were blogging about the incident.

Social media has been a key part of the nation’s involvement in the Ferguson case since the day it happened. Protest footage was shown online as it developed through YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook posts. If that spark of anger ever dissipated, a well-timed hashtag could bring it back, and when the evidence was released, people joined together to comb through the details for more information.

What would have happened if social media hadn’t been around for Ferguson? It’s unclear, but the impact of social media cannot be denied–it changed the face of a county, the life of a man, and the start of a movement.

Twitter

From the moment the shooting happened and continuing through today, Twitter has had a lasting impact on the general public’s memory of Ferguson and the events that followed. Tweets from Alderman Antonio French kept everyone abreast of what was happening, and were the source for information on the scene. The story spread far and wide, and may have been what some witnesses used when they discussed the event before a jury. Comments were made on everything from the extensive media coverage to the altercation between local police and a Washington Post reporter.

The near-constant trend of #Ferguson has not stopped since August, with nearly 3.5 million tweets around the planet in the three hours after the decision was delivered to the public.

That opening statement sounds like, "None of this would be a problem except the Internet."

— James Poniewozik (@poniewozik) November 25, 2014

People didn’t just use Twitter to talk– it was used to promote action as well. According to the Social Media Listening Center at Clemson University, the incident in Ferguson and the hashtags #MichaelBrown, #Ferguson, #DarrenWilson, and #BlackLivesMatter had the highest response to any event since they started monitoring the service. Listening Center Director Joe Mazer said that 90 percent of the Twitter mentions were negative toward Officer Wilson and the Ferguson Police Department. He said key influencers of the conversation were members of the media and the forces on the ground, or the people in and around Ferguson.

Much of that response was to organize protests, educate others, and spread the word about both sides of the case. Movements started on Twitter and many more grew because of it. In a country where people often say we don’t participate in government, simple sentences in 140 character increments have done what political leaders haven’t been able to do in quite some time: bring groups of people together through their feelings of injustice and anger.

#StoptheParade

Twitter took things to another level when activists in NYC took to social media and encouraged people in and around the city to gather together to interrupt the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade. They used the hash tag #StoptheParade to plan the protest that was to bring the injustice from the grand jury result to the eyes of those enjoying the parade. While it unclear how many people were involved in its inception, or even who started the movement, it quickly moved from hundreds of tweets on Twitter to posts on Facebook and Tumblr. As the movement grew, a map was released to show protesters just where to gather.

We moved #stoptheparade to 12am due to weather here’s the facebook group + info http://t.co/AzuTGdyHTw pic.twitter.com/TI2M5tHEWJ

— VHS dad (@versacenudes) November 27, 2014

Though mainstream media didn’t cover the protests instead of the parade, videos and images flowed onto Twitter and Instagram showing peaceful protesters we well as those who got a little more physical. It seemed like the NYPD got word of the event, as there were many officers lining the streets specifically where protesters planned to meet.

Tumblr

Much of what is happening on Tumblr is similar to what is happening on Twitter, though there are of course longer posts with some more detailed analysis of court documents and personal responses. However, there is one thing that is very different: the Ferguson National Response Network. The network stems from an idea that protesters had before the indictment announcement, which is a system that allowed interested parties to sign up to receive SMS messages about the announcement. This was especially helpful to those who worked during the announcements. As that movement grew, there was a demand to continue this collection of activities, so they created the Network Response Team. The Tumblr page allows submissions for peaceful demonstrations, allowing other people to join in so that the event is a success. There have been more than 70 events and counting planned through the page.

Online Fundraising

Social media and internet resources weren’t just a refuge for those fighting against Wilson. There were two fundraising campaigns set up to raise money for the police officer when it became apparent that he probably wouldn’t return to the line of duty, either through indictment or from resigning. The sites were set up through GoFundMe, but they were eventually halted. There was also a Facebook page called “Support Darren Wilson,” which raised more than $430,000. That too was halted with only a parting message stating that interested parties should “Please redirect Badges for Darren to the Ferguson PD. Thank you for your continued support. We understand that there will be many unanswered questions and concerns and we will update supporters as soon as we have the answers.” Another site, Support Officer Wilson, has raised more than $235,000, but it also stopped accepting donations without an explanation. There were reports that the administrators of the pages were receiving threats over their participation.

So, was social media’s role in Ferguson good or bad?

The Good

Social media is great at getting information out quickly about ongoing events. One could just set his or her browser to “Ferguson” and it was almost a real-time display of the events. Networks are only able to cover one aspect at a time, but social media has access to the collective information. It also allows for the continued planning of events that need larger groups of people as a sort of grassroots campaign.

Social media also allows people to search for information that is relevant to them. While the major news networks were all turned to the events in Ferguson, communities in New York City and Philadelphia also had their own protests. By using Twitter, one would just have to search to see where the protests were–either to join in or avoid them during travel.

Finally, it is obvious that social media encourages everyone to be more active and aware of the world around us. Without social media, we would only be privy to the information released by the news media, much of which has been slanted toward one direction or the other. It allows us to have educated debates, understand the details, and make our own decisions.

The Bad

Social media may have hurt the legal proceedings in Ferguson more than it helped. Those involved claim that witnesses who were around the scene on the street claimed to have seen Brown with his hands up, however many of their accounts seem to have come from Twitter rather than their own experience. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani even went on record to say that those witnesses should have been sued for perjury. While some argue that this is just looking for a reason not to persecute Wilson, the truth remains that many eyewitness accounts didn’t match up.

Social media may have also played a part in the violence, stoking anger and fear in the hearts of those involved. We can all agree that the violence and looting that has erupted, though understandable to some, has left many with a bad taste in their mouths and is almost undermining the cause. Social media has a time and place, and if we can use it responsibly, it will help shape the way we receive, discuss, and process news.

Resources

Primary

Twitter: #Ferguson Tag on Twitter

Mail Chimp: Darren Wilson Verdict Text Message Service

Twitter Reverb: Real Time Display of Tweets

Additional

Bustle: Ferguson’s Prosecutor Blamed Social Media for Misinformation, Entirely Ignoring the Mission and Necessity of Social Media

LA Times: Fundraising Web pages for Ferguson cop still closed; it’s unclear why

Washington Post: Grand Jury Reaches Decision in Case of Ferguson Police Officer

Washington Post: How Social Media Freed Reporter

Mediaite: Indictment Announcement from Ferguson

WYFF4: Social Media Listening lab sees record posts on Ferguson

Ferguson Response: Ferguson National Response Network

Talking Points Memo: Here Is How The Prosecutor Described The Michael Brown Shooting

Talking Points Memo: Rudy Giuliani On Ferguson Decision: I’d Prosecute Witnesses For Lying (VIDEO)

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ferguson and the Effect of Social Media Activism appeared first on Law Street.

Happy December, folks!

Have you all awakened from your turkey coma? Good. Because the situation in Ferguson has taken an interesting turn, and you’re going to want to be alert for this one.

The Oath Keepers have descended upon Ferguson in response to the riots, taking up armed positions on the rooftops of local businesses to guard against looters. Working as a sort of vigilante militia, these rooftop patrollers are veterans, ex-cops, and paramedics. They work at night and, apparently, they’re prepared to shoot down anyone who crosses their path.

So, here’s the thing about the Oath Keepers. On the one hand, some folks are happy they’re there. Local business owners who are receiving their protection have reported feeling safer, and that’s pretty great.

However, the Oath Keepers are a super problematic—and frankly, pretty scary—organization, and their presence in Ferguson is anything but benign.

The Oath Keepers are a radical, militant, right-wing non-profit that was founded in 2009. Not coincidentally, their appearance aligns perfectly with the election of President Obama and the rise of the Tea Party. The Oath Keepers are—shockingly—mostly white men, and their stated mission is to protect Americans’ Second Amendment rights and to prevent a dictatorship from ever taking hold in the U.S.

But really, that’s a lot of coded language for racist, paranoid, gun fanatics who decided to form a vigilante militia in response to a black president being elected to office.

Here’s what the Oath Keepers are really about—they’re a particularly militaristic arm of the Tea Party, a group that sprang up with Obama’s election because conservatives were scared as fuck. The economy was (and, let’s be real, still is) in the shitter, thanks to Republican tax policies that caused the housing crisis of 2008. Their beloved straight, white, Christian, family-man conservative president, George Dubya, was leaving office and being replaced by someone new and relatively unknown. The face of the United States was changing drastically.

So, naturally, conservatives freaked the fuck out. Enter the Tea Party and its bevy of reactionaries—folks dressing up in colonial garb, romanticizing the Founding Fathers and their Constitution, ignoring the existence of slavery, and holding up signs of President Obama fashioned as Hitler, the Devil, and a monkey, all demanding to see his birth certificate.

Yeah, so, the Oath Keepers are those people. Except they carry guns and act as unlicensed, armed security guards whenever things start to happen that they don’t like.

What’s high on their list of things they don’t like? Black people rioting in the streets after a grand jury decided that their lives don’t matter, and that we should all just collectively shrug our shoulders as another young black man’s life gets cut short—like Trayvon Martin and Eric Garner before him—and hold no one accountable for his death.

This the type of shit that gets the Oath Keepers riled up to restore order. God forbid people of color should rise up and demand that their lives be valued by the American justice system.

This is the third time in three years that we’ve had to collectively mourn the untimely death of a young black man, shot down because his blackness made him threatening to the shooter. And those are just the cases that have made national headlines. How many more people of color have been cut down in the last three years by a justice system that’s stacked against them?

More than any of us would like to admit.

And so, as the Oath Keepers descend upon the city of Ferguson, it’s no coincidence that the men standing on shop rooftops with guns are mostly white, and the assailants they’re taking aim at are mostly black.

These radical right-wingers are feeling all kinds of sympathy for the store owners whose businesses have been looted. And that sympathy isn’t entirely misplaced. It’s not a situation that any of us would wish on another person—to have their life’s work plundered or burned to the ground.

But if we all take a step back from the riot-shaming that is implicit to the Oath Keepers’ presence in Ferguson, it’s clear what side of this issue the radical right is on.

Martin Luther King Jr. once said that a “riot is the language of the unheard.” And conservatives, like the Oath Keepers, want to keep the unheard quiet. They’ll shoot them down to preserve the silence if they have to.

Instead of patrolling rooftops, threatening to gun down people who are fighting for their lives, the Oath Keepers should be listening to this latest outcry from the unheard.

They’re telling us that black lives matter. Michael Brown matters. Trayvon Martin and Eric Garner matter. And, contrary to what the American justice system might have us believe, these losses aren’t to be taken lightly.

So please, Oath Keepers, get the hell off the rooftops. Stop trying to intimidate the unheard people of Ferguson into silence.

Try listening to them instead.

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dear Oath Keepers: GTFO of Ferguson appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday night the highly anticipated case of the fatal shooting of Michael Brown by police officer Darren Wilson reached its conclusion. The grand jury found that it did not have sufficient evidence to indict Wilson. In light of this controversial result, there has been speculation as to whether Brown’s family will bring a civil lawsuit against Wilson and the Ferguson Police Department.

The Brown family would have to show that Wilson intentionally or negligently killed Brown. The family could sue Wilson and city officials for economic damages, such as lost future income and funeral expenses, as well as punitive damages.

Although there were no criminal charges brought against Wilson, Brown’s family might have a better chance at succeeding in a civil lawsuit due to the lower burden of proof. In criminal court, a case must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order to validate a criminal conviction. In other words, there must be no reasonable doubt in the minds of reasonable persons that the defendant is guilty. Contrastingly, in a civil lawsuit the standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence. In this case, the Brown family would have to show that Wilson was more likely liable than not.

In the past, there have been cases similar to this, where a plaintiff’s family was successful in such suits. Most notably was the wrongful death lawsuit against former athlete O.J. Simpson. Although a jury acquitted Simpson of murder, a civil jury found him liable for wrongful death of his former wife and her friend and ordered Simpson to pay $33.5 million in damages to their families.

Although the aftermath of the criminal case is still being felt all over the country, it will be interesting to see how the civil lawsuit plays out once things settle down.

Melissa Klafter

Melissa Klafter has a JD from St. John’s University School of Law and plans to pursue a career in Personal Injury Law. You can find her binge-watching her favorite TV shows, rooting for the Wisconsin Badgers, and playing with her kitty, Phoebe. Contact Melissa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post In the Aftermath of Ferguson, Will There Be a Wrongful Death Suit? appeared first on Law Street.

The entire nation is still reeling from the announcement on Monday night that Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson will not be indicted in the August 9, 2014 shooting of unarmed teenager Michael Brown. Now this has never been a simple case. Since Brown was shot, there have been protests, contentious police response to the protests, and national scrutiny. There have been conflicting statements from eyewitnesses, different forensic accounts, and I think it’s safe to say we’ll never be 100 percent sure what went down between Brown and Wilson.

People were mad when Wilson was not indicted, and understandably so. Of course, being indicted does not necessarily mean that Wilson did anything wrong. It means that the grand jury thought there was enough evidence for a jury of Wilson’s peers to decide whether or not he was guilty. They were not there to decide guilt or innocence–that’s what a jury trial itself is for. But the Ferguson grand jury did not have that evidence, so it did not make that decision.

A lot of people blamed the grand jury for not indicting Wilson, but I don’t–the jurors could only work with what was given to them. In fact, I think it’s more important to look at who gave them the evidence they would need, or lack thereof. Part of the idea of the grand jury is that it’s a testing ground for a prosecutor, but there’s also a lot of prosecutorial discretion. The prosecutor gets to present his case–what he would show in court to try to convict the defendant.

Now what prosecutor Robert McCulloch did sounded good to the untrained ear. He basically gave the grand jury all the evidence. All the conflicting reports, confusing facts, and messy evidence that has marked this case from the beginning. And he didn’t much appear to advocate for the indictment of Wilson. In fact, he seemed to emphasize the evidence that showed that Wilson was acting in self defense.

One legal analyst and trial lawyer, Lisa Bloom, argues that McCulloch basically used kid gloves with Wilson through a takedown of his presentation to the grand jury. You can read the entire thing here, and believe me, it’s a good read. But here are a couple of the most damning points she makes:

McCulloch seemed flummoxed by the novelty of conflicting evidence. In 28 years I have never had a case WITHOUT conflicting evidence.

— Lisa Bloom (@LisaBloom) November 25, 2014

Maybe we should take up a collection to teach the Ferguson prosecutors how to cross examine an adverse witness. Step 1: ask tough questions

— Lisa Bloom (@LisaBloom) November 25, 2014

An attorney who does not aggressively cross-examine the target of an investigation is an attorney who does not want to get to the truth.

— Lisa Bloom (@LisaBloom) November 25, 2014

Bloom is basically arguing that McCulloch didn’t try very hard to provide a compelling case to indict Wilson, for whatever reason. And she’s not the only one. The National Bar Association made the following statement:

The National Bar Association is questioning how the Grand Jury, considering the evidence before them, could reach the conclusion that Darren Wilson should not be indicted and tried for the shooting death of Michael Brown. National Bar Association President Pamela J. Meanes expresses her sincere disappointment with the outcome of the Grand Jury’s decision but has made it abundantly clear that the National Bar Association stands firm and will be calling on the U.S. Department of Justice to pursue federal charges against officer Darren Wilson. “We will not rest until Michael Brown and his family has justice” states Pamela Meanes, President of the National Bar Association.

Cops rarely get prosecuted for shooting civilians, and part of that is because of the way that the law is written. Police officers are usually given the benefit of the doubt, and understandably so–a police officer wouldn’t be able to do his or her job if they weren’t able to protect themselves. But when and if there’s an incident where the officer may have acted illegally, they should be held accountable. I don’t know what happened in Ferguson. I have my ideas and my opinions, but at the end of the day I simply do not know. But I can’t imagine that a trial in which it all gets sorted out could have been a bad thing. It was up to the prosecutor to make his case, and he didn’t. That’s why there’s no trial.

What happened in Ferguson on that August day is not an isolated incident. It’s difficult to find actual numbers, but we know that since August 9, 2014 14 other teenagers–or children even younger–have been shot by police. Between 1999 and 2011, African Americans have comprised 26 percent of those shot by police, despite the fact that only 13.2 percent of our population is black. Black male teens are 21 times more likely than their white counterparts to be killed by cops. Some of those shootings may be legally justified, but I can’t imagine that every single one is.

This is a conversation that our legal system needs to have.

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 Ferguson Grand Jury’s Decision Not to Indict Wilson: Was It Right? appeared first on Law Street.

The group of unnamed “hacktivists” Anonymous and the Ku Klux Klan have engaged in an apparent all-out cyber war over the events in Ferguson, Missouri over the last week. Anonymous apparently took control of the Klan Twitter account @KuKluxKlanUSA on Monday and seemingly still had control of it as of Friday. Anonymous also appears to have released a video on Tuesday launching a campaign called #OpKKK, or Operation KKK, threatening to take any content the KKK puts on the Web and to “dox” their members, meaning they would publish members’ personal information, including where they live.

Anonymous’s attacks are supposedly in response to threats from the KKK, well-known for being a hate group, in the St. Louis area against people protesting the death of Michael Brown and calling for the punishment of Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson. VICE News reports that the group distributed flyers on the streets and online the previous week addressing “terrorists masquerading as ‘peaceful protesters.’”

‘We will not sit by and allow you to harm our families, communities, property nor disrupt our daily lives. Your right to freedom of speech  does not give you the right to terrorize citizens,’ the flyer reads. ‘We will use lethal force as provided under Missouri Law to defend ourselves,’ it adds, citing Missouri’s version of a stand-your-ground law.

In Anonymous’s video response to the threats, a digitally altered voice explains why the hacker group chose to attack the Klan online. “We are not attacking you because of what you believe in as we fight for freedom of speech. We are attacking you because of what you did to our brothers and sisters at the Ferguson protest on the twelfth of November,” it says.

What followed were more suggestions of the cyber war spilling over into real violence. On Wednesday, another supposedly Anonymous-affiliated account posted an alleged message from Klan leader Frank Ancona encouraging members to ‘accidentally’ shoot any protesters wearing a Guy Fawkes mask, associated with the Anonymous movement.

‘It’s deer hunting season here in southern Missouri, it’s really easy to see how a hunter could mistake someone wearing one of those gay anonymous masks for the hind-end of a whitetail deer. Boom!!!! Oops, sorry it was an accident,’ the tweet reads.

While he didn’t explain why anyone would be deer hunting in the streets of the St. Louis metro area, Ancona seems to have confirmed the message in another statement attributed to him, RT reported. “You pathetic n***** lovers are going down, we’re NOT HIDING. WE’RE NOT ASHAMED OF WHO WE ARE AND WHAT WE REPRESENT. THE INVISIBLE EMPIRE CANNOT AND WILL NOT BE OVERTHROWN,” the message posted to Pastebin reads.

This isn’t Anonymous’s debut in Ferguson. Toward the beginning of the protests, when the identity of the officer who shot Brown was not known, Anonymous was on a campaign to release the names and information of various Ferguson police officers. In the process, a self-proclaimed member released what he or she claimed was the name of the shooting officer, Bryan Willman. Willman, a police dispatcher, was forced to shutter many of his online accounts, change his passwords, and stay in his house for six days, the New Yorker reported. It was only after this erroneous leak that the police department released the name of Officer Darren Wilson as the real shooter.

Despite the major mistake that may have endangered the life of an innocent police dispatcher, Anonymous has proven to be the real deal when it comes to hacking anything from police departments to hate groups.

Still, the authenticity of anything published in this apparent cyber war is difficult to verify for any news organization–a lot of the details of whose controlling these social media accounts is unknown. That’s because Anonymous actually is anonymous and is a loosely-associated network; almost anyone can claim to be a member. At the same time, the KKK seems to lack the technical know-how to give any sort of  coordinated response.

Zaid Shoorbajee

Zaid Shoorbajee is a an undergraduate student at The George Washington University majoring in journalism and economics. He is from the Washington, D.C. area and likes reading and writing about international affairs, politics, business and technology (especially when they intersect). Contact Zaid at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post KKK vs. Anonymous: Cyberwar Declared Over Ferguson Protests appeared first on Law Street.

In Ferguson, Missouri, protests over police aggression continue two-and-a-half months after unarmed teenager Michael  Brown was shot and killed by police officer Darren Wilson. On Monday, October 13, Dr. Cornel West and other spiritual leaders were arrested. This came as no surprise to West; earlier during the protests he claimed “I came here to go to jail.” While this feels like a 1960s documentary on Martin Luther King, Jr., that spirit is exactly what is needed now. We should all take a page from West’s book and really see the police militarization and violence for what it is: a civil rights issue. Addressing it with a religious community the way leaders did a half century ago could help.

As a PBS special notes, West “is a highly regarded scholar of religion, philosophy, and African-American studies” and “an an intellectual provocateur outside of the academic world.” His combination of academia and activism, of scholarship and celebrity, profoundly impacts the different causes he joins or criticizes. As a renowned Black figure in America, West’s disappointment in President Obama has been especially jarring. Slate reported this summer that West said that Obama “posed as a progressive and turned out to be counterfeit. We ended up with a Wall Street presidency, a drone presidency, a national security presidency.” Such harsh criticism reveals the complex matrix of Obama’s approval in the Black community. That the criticism is newsworthy reveals the significance of West’s opinion in America.

The Guardian reports that the recent rally in Ferguson was meant to harken back to the Civil Rights movement, and West’s intent to be arrested solidifies that. Leaders of the Black Freedom movement frequently organized to fill the jails of segregationist towns and cities across the South. Faith played an important role. Religious networks enabled civil rights leaders to encourage and mobilize people in the fight against oppression. But in Ferguson it seems like fewer people are looking for religious guidance from faith authorities. According to the Guardian, St. Louis rapper and activist Tef Poe “took the microphone and noted that the Christian, Jewish and Muslim preachers on the stage were not the people on the street trying to protect people from the police.” The article suggests that the nonviolence espoused in the 50s and 60s may not carry as much weight as it used to.

I have already written on how an emphasis on community is significant for civil rights. It may be a loss, then, if Ferguson protesters reject any religion’s power to engage and empower a community. This isn’t to say that secularism should be removed from protest, but secular people should not dismiss religion’s ability to organize. How can religion, grounded in old beliefs and traditions, aid a progressive movement toward greater justice? West, part theologian and part activist, has an approach that helps bridge the gap that many may see between religion and social justice.

His conception of democracy includes “the prophetic commitment to justice, which is at the foundation of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, means we must fight the reasons for unjustified suffering and social misery,” as a biography on West notes. Bringing religiosity into the activist fold is important for the pressing civil rights problems of our time. As the Guardian article notes, many see this as a generational problem in which elders are being held back from action. Speaking as a young person who is largely not religious, young people who are seeking change need to respect the authority of American religiosity; we should note where democratic principles of social justice meet those of religion.

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dr. Cornel West’s Religious Activism is Exactly What We Need in Ferguson appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court has an exciting new term ahead of it, and today’s case is no exception. This week the justices will hear arguments in Heien vs. North Carolina, a case that at its core poses one very simple question: should police officers be held to a higher standard? It’s a timely question, given the events of this summer, and one whose answer may hold some interesting ramifications.

In 2009, a man named Nicholas Heien was with another man who was driving his car in North Carolina when he was pulled over for having a busted tail light. Officers ended up searching the car — which belonged to Heien — and discovering a relatively substantial amount of cocaine. Heien was arrested and charged with drug trafficking.

Now under North Carolina law, if Heien was pulled over because he was breaking a law, and the subsequent search yielded the cocaine discovery, that would have been legal. The problem is that he wasn’t actually breaking a law when he was pulled over — technically, as long as you have one functioning tail light, you’re operating within the law in North Carolina. The officer who pulled him over was simply wrong about the law.

The Fourth Amendment reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Fourth Amendment requires that searches are lawful — and there’s significant evidence to suggest that the search of Heien’s car was not. There needs to be reasonable suspicion that a law has been violated in order to conduct that search. A non-functioning brake light, which is not even illegal, is simply not enough.

Heien lost his original trial. He then won an appeals case, but lost in the North Carolina State Supreme Court. The case will now be making its way to the Supreme Court, which will have to figure out whether the North Carolina Supreme Court made the right decisions saying that Heien’s arrest was fair, even though the cop who pulled him over was ignorant of the laws in the state in which he worked.

The State Supreme Court held that requiring officers to be walking encyclopedias of the states’ laws is ridiculous and creates much higher standards than the Fourth Amendment mandates. But the dissenters pointed out that allowing that kind of subjectivity could create a sort of slippery slope. In the dissent, Justice Robin Hudson wrote:

The danger in adopting a new constitutional rule here is that this particular case seems so innocuous: Of course it is reasonable that an officer would pull over a vehicle for a malfunctioning brake light. But this new constitutional rule will also apply in the next case, when the officer acts based on a misreading of a less innocuous statute, or an incorrect memo or training program from the police department, or his or her previous law enforcement experience in a different state, or his or her belief in a nonexistent law.

Then there’s the context of this August to discuss. The events in Ferguson propelled a national dialogue, one that was opened by stop-and-frisk laws, militarization of our police departments, and dozens of other issues around the country about the power of our police departments. Obviously, none of these examples are about the same kind of issue — the cops in Heien’s case obviously did not shoot anyone. But it does hark back to that question: what leniency do we give to our cops?

In the United States, not knowing a law is no excuse for breaking it. Should not knowing it also be an excuse for incorrectly enforcing it? Now, that’s up to the Supreme Court to decide.

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 Police Decisions Up for Debate in Today’s SCOTUS Case appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/police-decisions-debate-todays-scotus-case/feed/ 0 26197 https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/sidekik-attorney-pocket/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/sidekik-attorney-pocket/#comments Thu, 18 Sep 2014 15:43:13 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=24907

Currently there's a project on crowdfunding website Indiegogo called Sidekik. The idea of sidekik is based on the fact that many Americans have found themselves in situations where they are confronted by the police, or other security force, and may not know their rights. In such a situation, the Sidekik app can be used for a few different things. It will be able to audio and video record the interactions that the user has with the police, and then upload it to a server where it can't be deleted by just deleting the physical file off the phone. And it can connect the user, in real time, to an attorney who can help.

The post Sidekik: An Attorney in Your Pocket? appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

Need a lawyer? Well soon, we may have an app for that.

Currently there’s a project on crowdfunding website Indiegogo called Sidekik. The idea of sidekik is based on the fact that many Americans have found themselves in situations where they are confronted by the police, or other security force, and may not know their rights. In such a situation, the Sidekik app can be used for a few different things. It will be able to audio and video record the interactions that the user has with the police, and then upload it to a server where it can’t be deleted by just deleting the physical file off the phone. And it can connect the user, in real time, to an attorney who can help. Here’s a more thorough explanation of the idea:

The idea hasn’t really taken off on Indiegogo — so far, just over $11,000 has been raised of the $250,000 that Sidekik estimates it will need to get off the ground. But according to the founders, that initial money is enough to start developing the preliminary stages of the app.

I think the idea, at its core, is an interesting one. I do agree with the founders that most average Americans don’t necessarily know their rights, although if you’re curious, this guide on what to do if you’re pulled over by Lawstreeter Marisa Mostek is an excellent resource. Given the debates the nation has been having about police militarization and fairness, the Sidekik app could play an interesting part in ensuring that civil rights violations are avoided. I highly doubt that an app like this would have saved Michael Brown in Ferguson, but I could see it preventing some more minor civil rights issues.

There are some serious logistical issues though that need to be worked out when it comes to contacting attorneys. Presumably, you only have a few seconds between being pulled over and the cop walking up to your window. There’s no real time to tell your mobile attorney what’s going on, which will probably make it difficult for the attorney to be of real help.

Sidekik is also built on the fact that it will be in contact with attorneys within the jurisdiction where the user is interacting with the police, and be able to send the calls to those attorneys. It’s assumed that attorneys will pick up because of the desirability of client leads. I think that’s a great idea — during normal business hours. But what if you get pulled over at 2:00am? Will Sidekik be able to find a lawyer for you then? It’s certainly a tough guarantee to make, when it involves outsourcing to third parties.

Issues with the “contact an attorney wherever” logistics aside, the recording and uploading to a remote server is a decent idea. It will certainly allow you to chronicle your interactions with the police officer and ensure that the file can’t be deleted permanently if the phone is confiscated or destroyed. There are other apps that do the same thing, but maybe Sidekik will be able to make itself the go-to authority on secure recording.

I have no idea if this app will take off, but I think what it says about the state of American police is significantly more interesting than the app itself. We’re increasingly mistrustful of our police forces, and with more stories coming out every day, the paranoia is understandable. An app that’s based on the presumption that an officer is going to try to trick you or impede your civil rights is concerning. Whether or not Sidekik ends up being successful, it’s an interesting look into our national state of mind.

—

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 [Jason Weaver 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 Sidekik: An Attorney in Your Pocket? appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/sidekik-attorney-pocket/feed/ 1 24907 https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/culture-blog/need-abortion-missouri-life-just-got-harder/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/culture-blog/need-abortion-missouri-life-just-got-harder/#comments Fri, 12 Sep 2014 10:31:07 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=24569

Missouri lawmakers enacted a bill mandating a 72-hour waiting period for any woman seeking an abortion.

The post If You Need an Abortion in Missouri, Your Life Just Got Harder appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

Image courtesy of [Dave Bledsoe via Flickr]

Happy Friday, folks! We’ve finally made it through the week. Phew! It’s been a long one, am I right?

Unfortunately, women in Missouri aren’t feeling much relief today. Legislators in the Midwestern state enacted a bill on Wednesday that mandates a 72-hour waiting period for any woman seeking an abortion. There are no exceptions to this rule, even in cases of rape or incest.

So, unless you are about to literally die as a result of a pregnancy gone terribly wrong, if you want an abortion in Missouri, you’ll have to wait it out through a mandatory, three-day “reflection period.” The bill becomes effective in 30 days.

Folks, this bill is extremely problematic for a bunch of reasons.

First, there are the practical ones. Requiring a standard medical procedure to span over a number of days places a real logistical burden on women seeking abortions. Since there’s only one abortion clinic left in the state, accessing abortion services is already super difficult. Many have to travel long distances to reach this single, lonely clinic — a trip that requires a steep financial investment of gas money, wear and tear on your car, and probably a day off from work.

And that’s all before you can even get the actual abortion, which will cost you money, since a number of restrictions on Obamacare and public employee coverage mean it’s pretty unlikely that your insurance will pay for it.

 

Now, multiply all that hassle by three. Thanks to this bill, not only do Missouri women have to go through all this mess, they also have to take multiple days off from work and book a hotel room.

Oh! And to top off this logistical disaster, that three-day waiting period? You have to go through counseling sessions before it can even begin. They’re specifically designed to misinform women about abortions, and are meant to discourage patients from going through with the procedure — so add another day to that hotel bill, ladies.

The problems with this bill don’t stop there, however. Aside from the practical issues it will cause Missouri women looking to access safe abortion services, it also wreaks a certain level of psychic havoc.

Forcing women to undergo a reflection period to reflect upon a decision they’ve already thought about and made is incredibly condescending, demeaning, and paternalistic. If you’ve traveled 100 miles to get this procedure done — the average distance a patient at St. Louis’ Planned Parenthood will travel to receive an abortion — you’ve already made your decision.

You’ve thought this through.

Abortion isn’t a decision to be taken lightly, and guess who knows that better than anyone else? WOMEN WHO ARE SEEKING ABORTIONS.

Imagine these women were seeking different kinds of medical procedures. A cystectomy, for example, or a colonoscopy. How absurd would it be for someone — aside from her doctor — to step in and tell her to hold on, she’d better think this through?

It would be ridiculous. But the Republican lawmakers of Missouri have decided not to treat abortions like what they are — standard medical procedures — and instead, to separate them out into a special circumstance where women cease to be independent, intelligent adults, capable of making their own decisions. Apparently, when abortions are on the table, the women of Missouri are to be treated like ignorant, irresponsible children.

Now, it’s important to note that this bill didn’t pass easily. When it was introduced earlier this year, Democrats and women’s rights activists protested it, and Governor Jay Nixon even vetoed it. But this week, Republican legislators voted to override the veto, then cut off a Democratic filibuster to force a new vote.

In other words, Missouri Republicans really, REALLY care about forcing women who need abortions to undergo 72 hours of physical, mental, and financial hardship before they’ll be allowed to receive medical care.

Why, exactly, is the GOP so concerned about women’s reproductive systems? The past few years have been filled to the brim with cases of Republican lawmakers restricting women’s access to safe, affordable birth control and abortion services.

New research points to the idea that conservatives believe that women simply shouldn’t be having consequence-free sex. A recent study that surveyed Americans on their views about promiscuity found that people who think casual sex is wrong, also believe that women need a man to financially support them.

So, basically, a woman who’s totally independent, both financially and sexually, is a really foreign and potentially threatening concept to many conservative folks. As a result, they’re trying to reign in our ability to have consequence-free sex — which any man can do, by the way, with a quick stop at a local convenience store.

And in Missouri, they’re doing a damn good job.

 

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post If You Need an Abortion in Missouri, Your Life Just Got Harder appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/culture-blog/need-abortion-missouri-life-just-got-harder/feed/ 2 24569 https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/culture-blog/race-double-standards-its-the-american-way/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/culture-blog/race-double-standards-its-the-american-way/#comments Wed, 27 Aug 2014 17:12:34 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=23462

We've all seen the news coverage about the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, Missouri. Not just the shooting, but also the aftermath that has turned a tiny town into a rioting disaster. Just in case you didn't hear, Michael Brown was a young black man who was shot several times and killed on August 9 by a white police officer. But did you hear about the young man in Utah who was also shot and killed by a police officer? No? I'm not surprised. Twenty-year-old Dillon Taylor was shot to death by a black police officer two days after Michael Brown.

The post Race Double Standards – It’s the American Way appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

Hey y’all!

We’ve all seen the news coverage about the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, Missouri. Not just the shooting, but also the aftermath that has turned a tiny town into a rioting disaster. Just in case you didn’t hear, Michael Brown was a young black man who was shot several times and killed on August 9 by a white police officer. But did you hear about the young man in Utah who was also shot and killed by a police officer? No? I’m not surprised. Twenty-year-old Dillon Taylor was shot to death by a black police officer two days after Michael Brown.

Where is the outcry filled with blinding rage in Utah that has filled the streets of Ferguson? Why have there been no reports of Dillon Taylor’s death, except a few small pieces found here and there on random news sites? No mention on CNN, MSNBC, or any well known 24-hour news station.

Dillon Taylor, described as white and Hispanic, was shot right outside of a 7-11 on August 11 by a black police officer. I hate to quote Rush Limbaugh because I’m not a huge fan of his, but he said it best on his radio show: “In the current climate in the United States, a black person can never be the oppressor, and a white person can never be a victim.” Truer words have never been spoken. I realize that history has shown that white people oppressed blacks and other races. But the same has happened to whites, obviously not in the same way and not as widely remembered, but everyone has been oppressed in some way at some point in history. Why is the life of this young black man more important the life of a young white and Hispanic man?

The biggest point I want to make is that both of these young men should have the same amount of coverage, but they don’t and it is all based on race double standards. If you take a step back and look at the context of both of these shootings you would realize that there is no real difference except the color of their skin and that of the police officers. When will people stop and think about the bigger picture, not everything should be about color. It is about right and wrong. And for that matter we don’t even know who is right and wrong until all of the facts are released and the police officers who did the shootings have been investigated.

—

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

Featured image courtesy of [DonkeyHotey via Flickr]

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Race Double Standards – It’s the American Way appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/culture-blog/race-double-standards-its-the-american-way/feed/ 1 23462 https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/technology-blog/ferguson-social-media-kept-america-informed/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/technology-blog/ferguson-social-media-kept-america-informed/#comments Fri, 15 Aug 2014 19:05:32 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=23007

Writing about technology and its many uses has never been more important to me than today.

The post #Ferguson: How Social Media Kept America Informed appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

Image courtesy of [Light Brigading via Flickr]

Writing about technology and its many uses has never been more important to me than today.  The civil disobedience, sadness, and anger expressed in Ferguson, Missouri by its residents and sympathizers would most likely have gone unnoticed by the majority of the nation if it weren’t for social media outlets like Youtube, Twitter, Vine, and Facebook.  To attribute the proper value to these technologies, we must first identify the root cause of the demonstrations which have led to a militarized police force and the enforcement of pseudo-martial law.  This post in no way condones, encourages, or repudiates any of the methods used by law enforcement or protesters, nor does it seek to pass judgment on the incomplete police investigation concerning the death of Michael Brown.  Instead, this post will point out what has happened, and highlight the use of technology to keep the public informed when formal media outlets were unable to.

On August 9th, a recent high school graduate and prospective college student by the name of Michael Brown was killed by a member of the Ferguson Police Department.  There is much speculation surrounding the death, including the order of events leading to it.  Because an official investigation is ongoing, the only thing we know for certain is that Michael Brown, although unarmed, was shot and killed by a Ferguson Police officer.  The people of Ferguson, left heartbroken and mourning, decided to commemorate Michael’s death with a candlelight vigil in the same neighborhood where Mr. Brown was killed.  However, the Ferguson police made an appearance at the vigil, bringing with them police dogs and brandishing high powered assault weapons. In response, the crowds’ emotions turned from grief, to outrage, and escalated to protest as documented by Vine and Youtube uploads as well as Tweets and Facebook posts.

In the midst of the protests, a handful of opportunists taking advantage of high emotions and tension destroyed the property of privately owned businesses by looting, vandalizing, and setting said businesses on fire.  This small group of criminals turned a peaceful protest into a riot, causing the St. Louis County Police Department to take over law enforcement in the area by using a strategy of militarized policing.  Characterizing the entire group of protesters as looters and rioters led to the denigration of the entire protest. This allowed the looters to become scapegoats, which subsequently justified militarized police aggression.  The denigration of a group of people and scapegoating resulting in justified aggression are all characteristic of systemic oppression.

Whether knowingly or unknowingly, St. Louis County PD increased tension when it informed Ferguson residents that neither the autopsy nor the identity of the officer involved in the killing of Michael Brown, would be released to the public.  As protests continued, the peaceful crowds were met with heavily armored trucks and tanks, high powered assault rifles, snipers perched ready and waiting, tear gas, and rubber bullets. The protesters were told by police standing in front of tanks and using loudspeakers, that their right to peacefully assemble was not being denied.  Although a curfew was not set, police made it clear that they wanted protesters off of the streets by nightfall and used tear gas and rubber bullets to push non-compliant protesters back. In some cases, as documented by Vine videos, police shot tear gas canisters into residential areas, including the fenced in backyard of a protester that refused to go inside his home, although he was protesting on his own property.

Police detained journalists and shot tear gas at a news crew they saw filming them.  After the news crew ran away from their van and equipment to escape the tear gas, police were photographed removing their cameras and pointing them toward the ground so they could no longer record police activity.  This is where the pseudo-martial law comes into play. To be clear, martial law was at no time officially declared, but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it’s a duck. Disallowing the press to report activity; intimidating protesters with visuals of military-like riot gear; requiring protesters that are peacefully assembling to return to their homes by nightfall; detaining reporters without cause; and the use of militarized police enforcement are all characteristics of martial law.

The use of militarized law enforcement has been noted and called into question by government officials on both sides of the political spectrum.  Outrage by people following the activity in Ferguson on social media forums was voiced both nationally and internationally.  Photos, Vine and Youtube videos, as well as tweets and Facebook posts were the source of the outrage that led to protests in major cities throughout the country and internationally in cities like London.  There was even advice given in the form of Youtube videos to protesters in Ferguson by Palestinians on how to stay protected from tear gas.  As a result of public backlash against militarized policing, the Governor of Missouri, Mr. Jay Nixon, announced that Missouri Highway Patrol would take over law enforcement in Ferguson, and try to set a different tone.

The tone set by Missouri Highway Patrol was one of peace and understanding. Captain Ronald Johnson described his personal connection to not only Ferguson but to the killing of Michael Brown. The change in police technique was noted by formal media outlets as well as social media postings which reported MHP officers walking with protesters instead of standing against them. These officers were not dressed in riot gear nor did they use methods such as tear gas or rubber bullets in their interactions with Ferguson protesters.  In addition, the Ferguson Police Chief has announced they will comply with one of the requests of the protesters, to release the identity of the police officer who shot Michael Brown. That identity was released earlier today.

Not only did social media keep the public informed of minute by minute occurrences in Ferguson, but social media users also pointed out what they believed to be disparities in formal media coverage with hashtags on Twitter and Instagram like #IfIWasGunnedDown.  This particular hashtag was used to show ways in which news coverage portrays black victims by displaying unflattering images as opposed to more positive looking images to influence character assassination of the victims.  Other hashtags like #Ferguson were used to allow social media users to quickly find information related to the Ferguson protests.  While social media is an amazing platform that can be used to inform the public, it also showed differing public opinions.  Some users voiced support for the use of military-like force against protesters and used the incident of looting as evidence for its need.  Others voiced disapproval that such force was being used and accused militarized police enforcement of inciting more anger among peaceful protesters.

It’s unclear what will happen in Ferguson but it should be appreciated that people were able to inform the public, voice their opinions, and urge a public discussion on topics such as race relations, militarized policing, civil liberties, police brutality, and what people consider to be justice or injustice.  Social media opened up the problems of a town with a population of 21,000 to the world, causing people to come together in solidarity and peaceful protest.  If it weren’t for the openness of the Internet here in the US, we may have never known what was happening in Ferguson.  Whether you agree or disagree with what is going on in Ferguson, we can all take heart in knowing we were all able to use social media and technology to be informed and come to our own conclusions.

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #Ferguson: How Social Media Kept America Informed appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/technology-blog/ferguson-social-media-kept-america-informed/feed/ 2 23007 https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/michael-browns-death-sparked-national-dialogue/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/michael-browns-death-sparked-national-dialogue/#comments Fri, 15 Aug 2014 16:20:18 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=23013

Michael Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old, was shot and killed by police last weekend in Ferguson, Missouri.

The post Michael Brown’s Death Sparked a National Dialogue appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

Image Courtesy of [Gerald Byrnes via Flickr]

Michael Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old, was shot and killed by police last weekend in Ferguson, Missouri. He was supposed to start college this week. The incident sparked days of protest in the town, and showed a growing divide between law enforcement and citizens. The police originally said that prior to being killed, Brown tried to take the officer’s gun. A witness to the crime, Brown’s friend, said the boy’s hands were up and it was clear he was trying to cooperate. Now law enforcement claims that he was involved in a strong-arm robbery prior to the shooting. The story is unclear, muddled, and deeply problematic.

Incidents like this are not uncommon. Some have drawn parallels to the killing of Trayvon Martin and Eric Garner. And like those incidents, Michael Brown’s killing got big, quickly.

Social media, especially Twitter, exploded with hashtags, pictures, and stories of other similar situations. Michael Brown’s story didn’t stay in Ferguson for too long. In a matter of hours, it was all over the country. What started as raging fire on social media turned into protests and riots in Ferguson. Police responded quickly, and situation has continued to escalate. Many have called for the name of the police officer who killed Brown to be released, and despite the fact that the name has now been released, there are still more questions than answers.

And people besides social media activists and residents of the town have taken notice. Missouri’s Governor made a statement, The FBI announced it would conduct an investigation of the incident, and both President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have made statements.

But much of the rhetoric surrounding this event has been about the bigger issue at hand here. While the death of Michael Brown is a tragedy in itself, the nation-wide dialogue has been focused on the killings and discrimination by police of young black men. Ferguson is a small town, and two thirds of its residents are black. But on the police force, there are 50 white officers, but only three black ones. Situations like this are repeated in towns around the country.

Many point to what happened in Ferguson as a microcosm of what is happening in the rest of America. And through social media, there has been increased awareness on the issues–both in Ferguson, and beyond. One of the biggest hashtags to come out of the incident was #IfIWasGunnedDown. People posted two pictures of themselves–one in a very flattering light, and one in a light in which they thought the media would portray them should they be killed.

Another picture that went viral was from students of Howard University. Thousands gathered and stood with the same pose–hands in the air–and Tweeted the picture out. In a matter of hours, it had thousands of favorites and re-tweets.

This pic from last night at Howard U is crazy powerful. Thanks @the_blackness48 @tasneemraja http://t.co/z4hxOR3QHU pic.twitter.com/EyAqYLT49A

— Julia Lurie (@julia_lurie) August 14, 2014

And though the narrative has been similar for some time now, with many young people taking part in the conversation, it seems that more and more leaders on the national level are taking notice and getting involved. Not only are they discussing this specific instance of violence, but the larger, deeply rooted problems in American society. Obama discussed transparency in local police departments. Nancy Pelosi made a statement imploring the Justice Department to investigate Brown’s death. And Rand Paul wrote in Time about a “systematic problem with today’s law enforcement.”

It remains unclear what will happen as a result of Michael Brown’s death. And there is absolutely no way to know whether the calls for change in the justice system, police force, and overall mentality in America will come to fruition. But with these all too common events going viral more often, it may just be a matter of time until something substantive comes as a result of these tragic losses.

[Huffington Post] [Huffington Post] [Holder Statement] [Pelosi Statement] [Howard Picture]

 

 

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Michael Brown’s Death Sparked a National Dialogue appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/michael-browns-death-sparked-national-dialogue/feed/ 1 23013 https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/todd-akin-needs-legitimately-stop-talking/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/todd-akin-needs-legitimately-stop-talking/#respond Tue, 22 Jul 2014 18:07:08 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=20974

Most of us remember Todd Akin, former Missouri Senate candidate, for his comments about how women cannot get pregnant if they are "legitimately raped." Unfortunately for him, and for everyone who has to deal with his moronic comments, the fiasco hasn't ended there. In a recent attempt to explain his 2012 comments, all he did was dig himself into a deeper hole. It’s probably time to just stop talking, Mr. Akin.

The post Todd Akin Needs to Legitimately Stop Talking appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

Most of us remember Todd Akin, former Missouri Senate candidate, for his comments about how women cannot get pregnant if they are “legitimately raped.” Unfortunately for him, and for everyone who has to deal with his moronic comments, the fiasco hasn’t ended there. In a recent attempt to explain his 2012 comments, all he did was dig himself into a deeper hole. It’s probably time to just stop talking, Mr. Akin. I mean, I’ve heard from doctors that if you legitimately have stupid thoughts, you won’t say them because your mouth has the ability to shut the whole thing down. Or, in this case, your hand will lose its ability to write a book if you plan to write legitimately ridiculous words.

In his new book (how did he get a publishing deal?), Firing Back, Akin defends his infamous 2012 “legitimate rape” comments and blames the evil media for spinning the whole thing. Someone needs to explain to Akin what spinning means, because he obviously doesn’t know. The media saying exactly what a politician says during an interview is not spin, Mr. Akin. That’s what we call “reporting the facts.”

In what I am sure is a positively invigorating piece of literature, Akin tries to educate his readers about what “legitimate rapes” are. You see, some rapes are not “legitimate” because some women falsely accuse, and when he spoke about a woman’s body shutting “that whole thing down,” he didn’t mean the reproductive system battening down the hatches. Rather, he was referring to rape-related “stress” inhibiting her ability to get pregnant. He does concede that perhaps his wording was a little off.  I feel like I need a Todd Akin Dictionary of Rape Terms to understand this guy’s insane reasoning.

Well, almost…

His comment brings up so many questions: what exactly is “illegitimate rape?” When a woman rejects sex sarcastically? When her attacker rapes her in a certain location? As far as I, and hopefully most other people with common sense know, uteri and fallopian tubes don’t have the capability of self-realization. I’ve never heard a case of ovaries yelling, “We’re under attack! Shut the whole thing down!” to their reproductive-system comrades.

Reviews say that the take away from his new book is that despite his apology immediately following the comments in 2012, Akin is legitimately not sorry. Apology redacted.

But not actually…

—

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

Featured Image Courtesy of [Jennifer Moo via Flickr]

Marisa Mostek

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

The post Todd Akin Needs to Legitimately Stop Talking appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/todd-akin-needs-legitimately-stop-talking/feed/ 0 20974 https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/scotus-steps-execution-controversy/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/scotus-steps-execution-controversy/#comments Thu, 22 May 2014 15:39:50 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=15815

Justice Samuel Alito stayed the execution of Missouri death row inmate Russell Bucklew this week in a rare departure from the SCOTUS norm. What does this mean for the national debate on capital punishment and will death penalty opponents gain traction with their fight to learn where the infamous three-drug cocktails come from?

The post SCOTUS Steps Up Amid Execution Controversy appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

In a last minute stay, Justice Samuel Alito ordered the immediate halt to a Missouri man’s execution. Russell Bucklew, who was convicted of murder, kidnapping, and rape in 1996, was scheduled to be executed Wednesday evening, but his attorneys had successfully appealed to delay the execution on the grounds that the intended drug cocktail can create the same complications as the one used on an Oklahoma death row inmate earlier this month. That execution caused massive controversy after the inmate ended up seizing and having a heart attack instead of the usual quick death.

The Supreme Court usually keeps its nose out of execution cases, which makes Alito’s action very rare. Opponents of the drug mixtures that are currently used on death row inmates may herald this as a victory. Traditional drugs that used to execute inmates are in short supply, forcing prisons to resort to mixing drugs together from companies that are not very anxious to reveal their sources. In a Georgia, the state Supreme Court ruled against a death row inmate suing to find out where his killer drugs were coming from. With that information, the inmate’s lawyers argued, they can then proceed with investigations into whether the drugs being supplied would constitute cruel and unusual punishment; however, the Georgia Supreme Court decided 5-2 that protection from harassment for the pharmaceutical company was more important than the right to know where drugs came from.

With Alito’s stay, capital punishment is set to become the next legal debate on the national stage. As capital punishment continues, there is greater outcry as to why it is acceptable to use shady drugs supplied by anonymous pharmaceutical companies. After all, isn’t it cruel and unusual that inmates are not being told where their killer drugs are coming from? Maybe the Supreme Court can decide.

—

Dennis Futoryan (@dfutoryan) is an undergrad with an eye on a bright future in the federal government. Living in New York, he seeks to understand how to solve the problematic issues plaguing Gothamites, as well as educating the youngest generations on the most important issues of the day.

Featured image courtesy of [Ken Piorkowski via Wiipedia].

Dennis Futoryan

Dennis Futoryan is a 23-year old New York Law School student who has his sights set on constitutional and public interest law. Whenever he gets a chance to breathe from his law school work, Dennis can be found scouring social media and examining current events to educate others about what’s going on in our world. Contact Dennis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SCOTUS Steps Up Amid Execution Controversy appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/scotus-steps-execution-controversy/feed/ 1 15815 https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/4-new-laws-restricting-womens-access-to-abortions/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/4-new-laws-restricting-womens-access-to-abortions/#respond Tue, 04 Mar 2014 23:01:34 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=12741

By now, it is not unusual to hear stories of states trying to circumvent Roe v. Wade by closing medical facilities that conduct abortions, or imposing laws that restrict the amount window for a woman to get an abortion. But it seems like recently states have been looking for even more out-of-the-box ways to restrict access […]

The post 4 New Laws Restricting Women’s Access to Abortions appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

By now, it is not unusual to hear stories of states trying to circumvent Roe v. Wade by closing medical facilities that conduct abortions, or imposing laws that restrict the amount window for a woman to get an abortion. But it seems like recently states have been looking for even more out-of-the-box ways to restrict access to this service. Let’s take a look at the four newest bills presented to state legislatures, and what’s wrong with each of them.

1. Making women wait 72 hours to get an abortion

New bills in Missouri would require women to wait 72 hours after deciding to have an abortion to actually get one. In some states, there is a 24-hour waiting period, but Missouri would be the first to extend that by two full days. There would be no exceptions for cases of rape.

There really isn’t an explanation for this law besides the fact it stalls women looking for an abortion, and may provide an opportunity to talk them out of it. By making women wait three days after deciding to have the procedure, and actually going through with it, she may feel pressured into changing her mind. And without exceptions to the law, women who have been raped or face medical emergencies are put in a dangerous situation.

2. Letting women sue their doctors up to 10 years after their abortion if they regret having it

In Iowa, a bill has been introduced that would allow women to sue their abortion provider long after the abortion has taken place. The reason is not because of medical malpractice, lack of information, or the procedure was done incorrectly, but because they regret their abortions.  Women would have up to 10 years to sue their doctor after having the procedure. Women would be allowed to sue for compensation because of emotional distress. Even women who sign a consent form for the procedure would be eligible to sue their doctors if they think more information about alternatives, or potential dangers from abortions could have been provided to them.

Some women do regret the abortions they have, but that isn’t the fault of the doctor. If a woman is given accurate information about the procedure, signs consent forms, and the doctor does the procedure correctly, why would he or she be held responsible for emotional damage afterward? A doctor is supposed to inform a patient of her options, and should not be held accountable for someone’s regret, no matter how painful, down the road.

3. Make sure not just one, but both parents of an underage girl seeking an abortion are notified

Also in Missouri, there is a new bill that would require not one, but both parents of a girl seeking an abortion to be notified before the procedure take place. Currently, at least one parent of a minor is notified before a girl can have an abortion, but this law goes beyond that. It presents a number of problems, among them being children who may not know both of their parents, but be restricted from receiving an abortion because of this legislation. Additionally, young women may choose to cross state lines or have riskier abortions if they think their parents won’t find out. While the bill does include exceptions for parents who have been convicted of sexual abuse of the child, or if the courts had previously terminated their rights, it doesn’t include any exceptions for medical emergencies. So, if a parent were out of town, or just not a part of the girl’s life, her access to abortion would be cut off.

Parental notification has been contentious throughout the abortion debate because it concerns people who are underage. But most states have adequate parental notification laws with just one parent- adding this law serves as nothing but a hinderance and waste of time for women looking to get an abortion.

4. Restrict abortions to the first 20 weeks of pregnancy

West Virginia has been the most upfront in their aim to restrict access to abortion- by trying to limit them to the first 20 weeks of pregnancy. Doctors who perform abortions after this time period could be fined up to $5000, and face between 1 to 5 years of jail time. As a reminder for everyone- Roe v. Wade (the Supreme Court decision that settled this decades ago) said that women are able to have abortions until the pregnancy is “viable,” and went on to say that 24 weeks into pregnancy is the earliest a child is viable. Simple math shows us that West Virginia is at least four weeks short with this bill.

Perhaps the most troubling part of each of these bills is the way the people who introduce them try to cover their true intentions. Rather than just saying, “I’m against abortion and trying to restrict it,” lawmakers bring in pleas for “family values,” and perhaps most insulting, by insinuating a woman who wants an abortion isn’t capable of making the decision to get one without a plethora of “help” from lawmakers in her state. State legislatures are allowed to pass laws for the betterment of that state, but it’s hard to take some of these laws seriously when they were so obviously written to restrict access to abortion.

[Slate] [RH: West Virginia] [Iowa Bill] [RH: Missouri 1] [RH: Missouri 2]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured image courtesy of [ProgressOhio via Flickr]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 4 New Laws Restricting Women’s Access to Abortions appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/4-new-laws-restricting-womens-access-to-abortions/feed/ 0 12741 https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/the-dark-side-of-snapchat/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/the-dark-side-of-snapchat/#comments Thu, 19 Dec 2013 18:55:55 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=9981

Snapchat is a smartphone app designed to show timed pictures and videos that are not permanently saved to the recipient’s phone. The amount of time for which a recipient can view a photo is dictated by the sender, but is somewhere between 3-10 seconds. Usually the app is used for quick but relatively silly communication […]

The post The Dark Side of Snapchat appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

Snapchat is a smartphone app designed to show timed pictures and videos that are not permanently saved to the recipient’s phone. The amount of time for which a recipient can view a photo is dictated by the sender, but is somewhere between 3-10 seconds. Usually the app is used for quick but relatively silly communication with friends–pet pictures, selfies, or just a life update in photo form.

Snapchat has received some criticism for possibly making “sexting,” the sharing of suggestive or explicit photos, easier. Because pictures automatically disappear after a few seconds, it may be easier for young people to send inappropriate photos without fear of later distribution. The problem is that it’s not that hard to save snapchats–there are apps to secretly save snapchats. Or for the more brazen, it is possible for a recipient to screenshot a snapchat, but the sender does receive a notification. You can easily take a picture of a snapchat on one phone with another phone or camera. For the most tech-savvy, there can be ways to access secret files on a smartphone. There have been dozens of cases of people posting their sexting partner’s compromising snapchats to the internet.

Now in all fairness, the trend has not been quite as widespread as feared. A recent poll found that only about 15% of Snapchat users admitted to using it for sexting purposes. The creators of Snapchat won’t reveal how many people have downloaded their app, but given its popularity, it’s safe to say that 15% of users is probably a fairly large group.

Now, if snapchat was just an app used by adults, this wouldn’t be too problematic. Moral and ethical issues aside, it is legal for adults to send nude photos back and forth, if they so wish. The problem that arises with Snapchat is that it may be being used by teenagers to send pictures back and forth, which can be considered distribution of child pornography.

There have been actual alleged cases of child pornography sent through Snapchat. In November, ten boys near Montreal aged 13-15 were investigated for peddling child pornography. They convinced their girlfriends to send them nude or partially nude photos, and then shared them among themselves. The girls did not know that the pictures were being distributed. The boys are due back in court on January 20th.

Teen-to-teen transmitted photos are one thing. But now an even creepier use of Snapchat has resulted in a new arrest. This week in Missouri, a mother has been charged with misdemeanor child endangerment after she sent snapchats of both herself and her 14-year-old daughter topless. She claims that she didn’t take the picture herself, but one of her other daughters did. That claim is contentious, because according to Prosecutor Tim Lohmar, it seems that the woman and her daughter are posing for the photo.

There have also been cases of adults sending explicit snapchats of themselves to minors, such as Joseph Johnson, a middle school teacher in Florida.

Snapchat might make sexting more guilt-free, but I can’t imagine it makes it that much so. It really is pretty easy to save a picture sent through the app. I think the bigger issue at play that warrants discussion is the use of social media to send inappropriate content. As children get smartphones, tablets, or computers at younger and younger ages, lines become fuzzier. The truth of the matter is that teens will always push the envelope, and science tells us that they’re quite not as good at making sound decisions as adults.

While snapchat is undoubtably fun, it can be dangerous, and teens sending pictures among themselves can have serious consequences. The Missouri woman being charged absolutely deserved it, but as for the teens, I think the issue is a little fuzzier. I know I’ve cautioned this before, but I truly think that as our technological abilities change, our laws need to keep pace.

—

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 [Summer Skyes 11 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 The Dark Side of Snapchat appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/the-dark-side-of-snapchat/feed/ 1 9981