Welcome to the RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through the top five controversial and crazy stories in the world of law and policy each day. So who is ranting and who is raving today? Check it out below:

Is John Oliver a Debt-Buying Copycat?

John Oliver is being accused of stealing his debt-buying idea from a debtor advocacy organization. The Debt Collective, which raised $700,000 to erase nearly $1 billion in medical and tuition debt, is saying that John Oliver’s researchers contacted them asking about their incredible feat. The Debt Collective spent hours giving “Last Week Tonight” detail after detail on how they organized the work and then “at the last minute” “LWT” did not want to be associated with the Collective’s Occupy Wall Street roots. Now the so-called Oprah of late night TV is facing a scandal and people haven’t been too keen on coming to his defense.

John Oliver not crediting The Debt Collective with the Rolling Jubilee idea is exactly what’s wrong with tv comedy news

— Kaitlin Marone 2016 (@immerspaetlin) June 9, 2016

DEBT COLLECTIVE, 2011: we’re gonna buy debt & forgive it
JOHN OLIVER, 2016: actually thats my idea
MEDIAITE: yes the british man did it 1st

— jm (@jaubert_moniker) June 7, 2016

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrushTop 5: June 9, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

In an era engulfed by technology, previous ways of life have undergone a revamping. One aspect is the way in which social movements are conducted. The implementation of social media as a key tool in producing change has created “hashtag activism,” a way of protest both hailed and scorned by critics for its influence.

What is Hashtag Activism?

Hashtag activism is the act of supporting a cause that is being advocated through social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and other networking websites. Although sometimes criticized for its lack of effectiveness and promotion of lazy activism, it is the implementation of social media as a platform to raise awareness on a multitude of issues.

On September 17, 2011 the #OccupyWallStreet movement began to raise issues of economic and social inequality in the United States. Arguably one of the first major Twitter campaign, the protest mobilized thousands of people almost exclusively through the Internet. Robert Reich, former secretary of Labor under President Clinton, notes that, “Occupy put the issue of the nation’s savage inequality on the front pages” and “to that extent, it was a stirring success.” Although  with a lack of clear objectives and leadership the movement was unable to sustain long-term economic changes, #OccupyWallStreet created a new method of activism that was adopted in future campaigns.

Cases of Hashtag Activism

#Kony2012

War criminal and Ugandan military leader Joseph Kony is known for abducting children and turning them into child soldiers and sex slaves. In an effort to draw attention to his offenses Invisible Children, Inc. released a short documentary titled Kony 2012 in March of 2012, kick starting the “Stop Kony” movement that swept the United States. As of June 1, 2014 the film has over 99.5 million views on YouTube.

Americans helped contribute to the nearly 2.4 million tweets #Kony2012 accumulated in March 2012. Stimulated by the general public and celebrities alike, the United States deployed 100 military advisers to join the force of 5,000 sent by the African Union to suppress the violence in Uganda.

Abou Moussa, the U.N. Central Africa representative said, “We need to take advantage of the high level of interest, goodwill and political commitment to finally put an end to this crime.”

However, Joseph Kony remains on Forbes World’s Most Wanted Fugitives list as he has yet to be captured by the authorities.

#BringBackOurGirls

Boko Haram, a terrorist group in Nigeria, kidnapped 276 female students from their school on April 15, 2014. Since their abduction, the girls have involuntary converted to Islam and forced into marriages at the bride price of $12 dollars a piece.

Parents and activists were frantic for the government to escalate their involvement to find the missing girls, and their need to spread awareness led them to Twitter. According to BBC Trending‘s Anne-Marie Tomchack, Ibrahim M Abdullah, a lawyer in Nigeria, was the creator of the hashtag #BringBackOurGirls. The story of the abducted girls did not begin to gather attention until April 23, 2014 when Nigerians adopted the new slogan and began tweeting it.

Perhaps the Nigerian government would be able to ignore regular citizens calling for help, but once First Lady Michelle Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, and Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton got involved the issue could no longer be disregarded.

Time’s Laura Olin stated, “It’s not everything, but it’s a start. And the world is now talking about 276 stolen girls in Nigeria when before it wasn’t talking about them at all.”

Boko Haram has continued to terrorize the people of Nigeria. Since the abduction of the school girls, the militants have kidnapped even more children and murdered people in towns along the way. The Nigerian government has been all over the place with its involvement. Statements banning protests were released, followed by a quick change of heart from the administration claiming it has, “never, ever tried to violate anybody’s rights. We believe in human rights, we believe in citizens’ rights.” Allegedly the military knows where the remaining girls are, but has yet to go in due to the danger of the camp.

#YesAllWomen

On May 23, 2014, Elliot Rodger went on a killing spree near the University of California, Santa Barbara campus in Isla Vista. Six people were fatally wounded and another thirteen were injured before Rodger committed suicide in the midst of a police chase. Before the attacks began, Rodger posted alarming and irate videos to YouTube declaring his disdain of all women since they had been rejecting him throughout his life. In addition to the series of videos, he produced a 137 page autobiographical manifesto written in the same sentiment.

Although it is clear that Rodger was more vicious and vehement than most, the outlines of the prevailing misogynistic American cultural values were evident in his manifesto. Feminists could no longer stand for the perverse ideology and took to social media to let the world know.

Because being alone in a parking garage at night is one of the most terrifying experiences on earth #YesAllWomen

— jackie vasquez (@jvask) May 25, 2014

#YesAllWomen because even a taped confession admitting to raping me wasn't enough to put him in jail.

— Jessi Smiles (@jessismiles__) May 26, 2014

I shouldn't have to hold my car keys in hand like a weapon & check over my shoulder every few seconds when I walk at night #YesAllWomen

— Sophia Bush (@SophiaBush) May 25, 2014

The Twitter campaign #YesAllWomen created a place for women to share their own stories of sexism and brought attention to Rodger’s animosity toward women, that stemmed from the outlooks of our society. The New Yorker’s Sasha Weiss accurately described the moment as,

“#YesAllWomen is the vibrant revenge of women who have been gagged and silenced.”

#YesAllWomen is effective since instead of preaching to the typical feminist choir, it drew in the more mainstream population including men and celebrities. However, not all individuals were able to see the campaign for what it was and swiftly came to the defense of the male gender.

To counter #YesAllWomen, men’s rights activists were quick to tweet #NotAllMen. The thread was fashioned to establish that Rodger did not represent the entirety of the male gender; he was one of those terrible guys, not like the rest of them. #NotAllMen contributors felt the burning desire to let the world know they are not the problem and to once again push women’s issues to the back burner(if it was intended or not).

The people who tweeted #NotAllMen or believed that feminists were just on another one of their rampages missed what #YesAllWomen was intended to do. The true sentiment #YesAllWomen was expressed by CNN’s Emanuella Grinberg who said, “No, not all men channel frustration over romantic rejection into a killing spree. But yes, all women experience harassment, discrimination or worse at some point in their lives.”

As on May 26, 2014 the #YesAllWomen hashtag has reached 1.2 million tweets and 1.2 billion impressions.

 Arguments for Hashtag Activism

“Hashtag activism is a gateway between politics and popular culture, a platform to educate the ignorant and draw attention to the operation of power in the world,” stated Ben Scott in New America’s Weekly Wonk. By using a medium that is seen by millions of people daily, hashtag activism has the ability to alter a person’s attitude towards a cause by exposing them to others personal experiences and witnessing mass support. As social change is dependent on transformation at an individual level, Twitter makes itself invaluable as a campaign tool.

When victims see that others have endured the same trauma, it directly helps them as they can see that they are not alone in their pain. Even if they do not feel support by those they directly interact with in life, they know that people do care about them.

Along with the cases previously mentioned, computer-based activists also directly impacted the amount of funding for another issue they felt strongly about. Planned Parenthood annually receives $680,000 dollars from the Susan G. Komen Foundation that helps provide exams largely for minority and low income women. In January 2012, Komen announced that it would stop its funding of mammograms and breast exams through Planned Parenthood. The Internet went into an uproar, tweeting hashtags like #standwithpp and #singon. By Friday of that week, Komen had reversed its decision and stated it would continue to support Planned Parenthood.

Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, told the Los Angeles Times, “I absolutely believe the exposure on Facebook and Twitter really drove a lot of coverage by mainstream media… I’ve never seen anything catch fire [like this].”

 Arguments Against Hashtag Activism

Criticisms of hashtag activism stem from the thought that the generation that uses a social media-driven method of reform are observers, commenters, self-indulgent philanthropists – not true advocates witnessed in previous eras. CNN’s Dean Obeidallah stated that the ‘Greatest Generation’ in the 1940s and ‘50s were, “doers, not watchers.” In the ‘60s and ‘70s, the streets were flooded with protests of the Vietnam War and roared with a call for civil rights, forcing the hand of government officials to listen the people’s wishes.

Now the most common form of demonstration is retweeting another’s thoughts or giving a “like” on Facebook. Sure, online petitions are digitally signed, but the automatic signature lacks the passion displayed by movements that have come before.

Obeidallah relates the tactics of hashtag activists to the revolutionaries in the Arab world. He acknowledges that they did use social media, but their efforts did not stop there. Protesters risked their lives to achieve the change they yearned for, “All the tweets in the world would not have driven the presidents of Egypt or Tunisia from their offices,” declared Obeidallah.

Sarah Palin has also voiced her opinion on the inefficiencies of using social media to obtain success. On the former Governors Facebook page she posted a photo of a man with sheets of paper attached to his body, with hashtags scribed on them such as, “#StopLazyInternetActivism” and “#YouAreNotMakingADifference.” In regards to the abductions done by Boko Haram and the #BringBackOurGirls campaign that ensued, Palin included personal commentary in a caption:

Diplomacy via Twitter is the lazy, ineffectual, naïve, and insulting way for America’s leaders to deal with major national and international issues… If you’re going to get involved anyway, Mr. President, learn to understand this and believe it, then announce it: Victory is only brought to you ‘courtesy of the red, white and blue.’ It’s certainly not won by your mere ‘unfriending’ the bad guys on Facebook. Leading from behind is not the American way.

Evgeny Morozov, the author of “The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom, said, “My hunch is that people often affiliate with causes online for selfish and narcissistic purposes… Sometimes, it may be as simple as trying to impress their online friends, and once you have fashioned that identity, there is very little reason to actually do anything else.”

Many individuals share the impression that hashtags may come and go and they are no match for real world engagement.

Conclusion

While it cannot be denied that hashtag activism is an effective method in spreading awareness of a cause, the tangible achievements attained from physical protests perhaps outweigh those on the Internet. The absence of organization and leadership found in many Twitter-based campaigns have some people critical of the realistic capability these movements have in comparison to the street pounding tactics used during the civil rights movements. For a movement to be successful in a technology-driven generation, a combination of both civic engagement and hashtag activism would produce the best results.

 Resources

The New York Times: The Manifesto of Elliot Rodger

Washington Post: #BringBackOurGirls, #Kony2012, and the Complete, Divisive History of ‘Hashtag Activism’

Reuters: African Union Launches U.S.-Backed Force to Hunt Kony

#BBCtrending: The Creator of #BringBackOurGirls

Time: #BringBackOurGirls: Hashtag Activism Is Cheap – And That’s a Good Thing

CNN: Deadly California Rampage: Chilling Video, But No Match for Reality

New Yorker: The Power of #YesAllWomen

Time: Not All Men: A Brief History of Every Dude’s Favorite Argument

CNN: Why #YesAllWomen Took Off on Twitter

Hashtags: Social Media Users Respond to Existing Dangers Towards Women with #YesAllWomen

Weekly Wonk: #WhyHashtagActivismMatters

New Zealand Herald: Verity Johnson: Hashtag Activism – #TakeItSeriously

LA Times: Komen Learns Power of Social Media: Facebook, Twitter Fueled Fury

The New York Times: Hashtag Activism, and Its Limits

Christian Science Monitor: Happy Birthday, Occupy!

Forbes: The World’s 10 Most Wanted Fugitives

CNN: Boko Haram Blamed for Nigeria Village Attacks; 15 Killed, Chief Kidnapped

Telegraph: Nigeria: Kidnapped Schoolgirls ‘S\

Alex Hill

Alex Hill studied at Virginia Tech majoring in English and Political Science. A native of the Washington, D.C. area, she blames her incessant need to debate and write about politics on her proximity to the nation’s capital.

The post Hashtag Activism: Is it #Effective? appeared first on Law Street.

Have you ever been in a crowd of people that’s moving with a mind of its own? I’ve come close — various rallies in front of the White House, concerts, and the 2012 Inauguration all caused me to find myself in situations where I had basically no control over where I moved. I’m barely five feet and I’m petite — if someone wanted to move me or shove me they could do it with little effort.

Now luckily, none of those crowds that I’ve been swept up in turned into anything violent. I’ve always been able to push my way out, eventually. But I know that if a crowd I’m in ever does get violent and I’m forced to run, I have to be careful. I need to protect myself. And I would bet that most young women feel the same way–it’s a scary thought, but a realistic one.

I bet Cecily McMillan felt the same way.

Cecily McMillan was an Occupy protester in New York’s Zuccotti Park on November 15, 2011. Police were brought in to break up the crowd, and it turned to chaos. Those who were there that night described it as an “attack.” Many protesters had their clothing ripped and were pushed to the ground. At one point Cecily McMillan threw an elbow into a policeman’s face, and last week she was found guilty of second-degree assault. She has yet to be sentenced, but could face up to seven years in prison. She is currently being held without bail on Rikers Island.

At first glance the case seems cut and dry. A protester tangled with a cop and is now paying the price. But in reality it is so much more complicated than that.

Cecily McMillan has her own side of the story. She claims that she threw the elbow as a gut reaction to having her right breast grabbed by the police officer who later accused her of assault — his name is Officer Bovell. Here’s a picture of McMillan after the incident in Zuccotti Park:

Maybe we should ask #CecilyMcMillan about her #myNYPD moment. http://t.co/zle2kOHvDf pic.twitter.com/lDVFsWhOZN — Ⓐ ‏#GrumpyCuntSec Ⓐ (@brazenqueer) April 22, 2014

That’s a bruise from where Officer Bovell allegedly grabbed her. Despite the prosecution’s contention that McMillan caused the injury herself, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Officer Bovell, at the very least, grabbed her from behind, regardless of how she reacted or why he did so.

#CecilyMcMillan, activista de @OccupyWallSt declarada culpable de atacar a policía de #NY http://t.co/V8hyrp64UM pic.twitter.com/ncj3fLyoMa — Democracy Now! Es (@DemocracyNowEs) May 6, 2014

That’s Officer Bovell right behind her with his hand raised. It certainly looks like he’s going to grab her, and it really looks like she’s not expecting it.

There’s some other conflicting evidence, including a video of McMillan elbowing Officer Bovell in the face, but it’s really hard to see why, or what he’s doing. It could be on purpose, or it could be because he had grabbed her.

So the case went to trial, where it seemed even more convincing that something fishy was up — Officer Bovell had a hard time identifying which eye McMillan had actually so viciously elbowed. He got it wrong, multiple times. Clearly her crazy attack left him traumatized.

And there’s also evidence that McMillan was in pretty bad shape when the police grabbed her. There’s a sixteen minute video of McMillan having a seizure:

If you watch closely, for the first few minutes no one really does anything. Finally, at the eight-minute mark she gets some medical attention. The photos of her that night can be found here, and they’re equally disturbing. She’s being thrown around like a rag doll. In some of them her feet are barely touching the ground. In some ways that’s what upsets me the most. This woman did not deserve the kind of brutality that she received that night. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Especially when one of those wrongs is dealt out by the people who are supposed to keep us safe — the police.

I understand that the police needed to clear the area. I understand that things got messy. But now she might be facing seven years in prison. And that’s plain ridiculous. Even the jury that convicted her thinks so — nine out of the twelve sent a letter to the judge stating,

We the jury petition the court for leniency in the sentencing of Cecily McMillan. We would ask the court to consider probation with community service. We feel that the felony mark on Cecily’s record is punishment enough for this case and that it serves no purpose to Cecily or to society to incarcerate her for any amount of time. We also ask that you factor in your deliberation process that this request is coming from 9 of the 12 member jury.

Trials are bifurcated for a reason — the jury has no say in McMillan’s sentencing. But that they felt so compelled as to ask for a lighter punishment for her shows this case was never cut and dry.

So I want you to put yourself in McMillan’s shoes again. Imagine that you’re swept up in a crowd and have no control. You panic, and someone grabs you, and you flail to get away. It’s not a new story, and it’s not that hard to imagine. I know because I imagine it every damn time I’m in a crowd that size.

I could be Cecily McMillan. So could you. And the way this case was handled should scare you.

—

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

Featured image courtesy of [Timothy Krause 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 Any One of Us Could Be Cecily McMillan appeared first on Law Street.

Do you guys remember the Occupy Wall Street movement?  Do you remember how annoying they were? I’m glad that’s over!

They made (some) salient points, though. Chief among their complaints was the fact that, according to various financial reports, more than one-third of the nation’s wealth was controlled by one percent of the population. “Impossible!” we all screamed, “America is built on the potential of financial success through hard work!”. The OWS movement came and went, but many of the problems remain unresolved. The one percent remains the one percent, and those of us in the 99 percent maintain hope that we’ll invent the next Instagram, Microsoft, or Kardashian-esque empire to join their ranks. We all aspire to one day work for ourselves, join the upper echelon of American wealth, and vacation with Jay-Z and Beyoncè.

The distribution of wealth and prosperity is not just uneven for individuals- the same rules apply for corporations.  A recent Policymic post has exposed a fact about which I was previously unaware: many of the most popular brands in America are actually owned, in some capacity, by ten companies. These ownerships are not outright; many of the business arrangements arise as part of majority stock ownership, distribution deals, and mergers.  The same article shows that there are six companies responsible for the majority of media output in this country, and that four financial institutions control our banks.

That sh-t cray.

It’s an interesting, and even insane, premise to consider: so few people actually control so much.  In theory, there are twenty-ish CEOs that have the American economy under marionette strings. They’re the business illuminati, if you will. This statement is even scarier when you consider how much corporate money controls politics.  Many of the people that we elect to represent our interests are eventually bought and sold by private interests that do not always directly align with the desires of their constituents.  It’s hard to stick to your political promises and not become a Washington insider when your reelection campaign coffers are empty. Money wins elections, after all. NRA, anyone?

The power struggles in this country are real.  There is no problem with capitalism, and for many the drive for financial and professional success is the fuel they need to continue to work hard. That drive is premised on the possibility of one day being the boss.  It’s tougher to become the boss when there are only twenty open positions.  So much money and power in so little hands is scary.

An Antitrust Primer

Antitrust is an area of law that seeks to guarantee competition between businesses for the benefit of the public.  Antitrust law also endeavors to regulate mergers and acquisitions of businesses so that mega-corporations are not formed to unfairly dominate their respective industries.  The premise of antitrust is basically that competition is a good and necessary component of running a business, and attempts to lessen competition in an unapproved manner are illegal.

There are various reasons why a lack of competition is problematic in modern business.

The first goes back to the old phrase of “absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  Let’s take a moment to remember the history of our dear nation, shall we?  This country was founded by people who were escaping monarchies and a government where the power was vested in one person; they understood what too much power can potentially do to a country. If we subject those who govern our country to these standards, why would our businesses be treated differently?

They’re not.

When it comes to these businesses, the same premise applies.  If one company controls everything, we all lose. How else would their business practices be regulated?  Concerns from consumer prices to employee wages wouldn’t be countered by an industry standard, because the one company is the industry.

Second, competition spurs economic growth. If Samsung didn’t exist, Apple wouldn’t be a powerhouse.  There wouldn’t be a Magic Johnson without a Larry Bird, a Britney without a Christina, and a Starbucks without a Dunkin’ Donuts. You get where I’m going with this, right? Additionally, this country is still experiencing the effects of an economic downturn, and the last thing on the agenda of any political party is the slowing down of financial recovery.

This is especially true because America has been down the mega-corporation road before, and it didn’t end well.

The Lessons of Bell Atlantic

In 1974, the U.S. Department of Justice filed an antitrust lawsuit against AT&T.  In U.S. v. AT&T, 552. F.Supp.131 (D.D.C. 1983), the government sued AT&T to stop what they believed were monopoly-like business practices. The allegations were that the corporate structure created unnecessary barriers to competition, which is in direct contravention of the Sherman Act. The main goal of the Sherman Act is to establish and protect unobstructed competition between businesses as a national standard. Specifically, the complaint stated that 6conspiracies sought to “restrain trade in the manufacture, distribution, sale, and installation of telephones, telephone apparatus, equipment, materials, and supplies…”. The D.C. Circuit found that, at the time, AT&T was the largest corporation in the world. The resolution of the case created twenty-two smaller “operating” companies, mostly allocated by region.  The forming of these operating companies divests and divides the power from one major body, thus creating competition and reinforcing the tenets of the Sherman Act.

Why It Matters

Obviously this situation is significantly different, but it is sure to raise some red flags.  It’s a slippery slope, no?  With U.S. v. AT&T, there was one company dominating an industry.  The same result would not occur in the current scenario.  Here, there are ten companies controlling hundreds of consumer goods, six companies running the entertainment industry, and four banks commanding our financial institutions.  We are a merger away from a mega company stomping away at the competition. In other words, we’re monopoly-adjacent. These companies need to be closely scrutinized.  It’s the same reason that the proposed merger between US Airways and American Airlines has been scrutinized so closely as of late.  A superpower is not beneficial for the expansion of business, and it’s not in the best interests of the country.

[Policy Mic]  [Case Text] [New York Times] [Deal Book]

—

Featured image courtesy of [FamZoo Staff via Flickr]

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Problem of Too Much Power in Too Few Hands appeared first on Law Street.