Comedian Kathy Griffin faced swift backlash after the photo in which she posed with a fake severed head that looked like President Trump. And since, she has continued to receive threats. In a press conference on Friday, she repeated her apology, but said that it is outrageous and unprecedented that the President of the United States is personally trying to “ruin a comedian.”

Standing next to her lawyer, Lisa Bloom, she said, “I don’t think I will have a career after this. He broke me.” She said that people fell into some kind of mob mentality and that death threats started rolling in. Her video apology doesn’t seem to have had much effect on public scrutiny, and she was also reportedly contacted by the Secret Service, which is now investigating her.

After the controversy, Griffin has lost several jobs, including five stand-up gigs and her annual job as co-host of CNN’s New Year’s Eve program. She has hosted that show for 10 years. Griffin said the Trump family is bullying her by exercising its influence on private companies as well as the public sector, calling for everyone to fire her.

Kathy Griffin on fallout over photo: “Regarding the image that I participated in, that apology absolutely stands. I feel horrible.” pic.twitter.com/ffqhfnijKf

— ABC News (@ABC) June 2, 2017

“He’s the president of the United States,” Bloom said. “This is outrageous and unprecedented.” She added: “For the first time in history that we are aware of, the President of the United States and his family has personally attempted to ruin a comedian. The message was clear: Criticize the president, lose your job.”

Bloom also pointed out what many people on social media already have said: President Obama had to withstand a number of threats during his time in office. Musician Ted Nugent made threats against him and Hillary Clinton, but was recently invited to the White House.

“Obama, he’s a piece of s—. I told him to suck on my machine gun. Hey Hillary, you might want to ride one of these into the sunset, you worthless b—-,” Nugent said on a stage appearance in 2007, while holding two machine guns. In April, he had dinner with Trump in the White House.

It’s reprehensible what Kathy Griffin did, & the left has denounced it.
Ted Nugent did it to Obama, & your dad invited him to the WH. https://t.co/jhOGmr4egG

— Laurie Crosswell (@lauriecrosswell) May 30, 2017

A lot of people started calling out the Trumps for having a double standard, and when Press Secretary Sean Spicer was asked about the controversy during Wednesday’s press briefing, he just said he didn’t know what Trump’s response was at the time.

After the bipartisan outrage at the photo shoot, at least two celebrities have come to Kathy Griffin’s defense. “I still love Kathy Griffin. She went past the line, she’ll pay for it in the way she pays for it, and we’ll go out and we’ll laugh with her again,” said Jamie Foxx to Entertainment Weekly. And Jim Carrey agreed–he said when a president does the type of “crazy things” that Trump is doing, comedians are the “last voice of truth.” “I think it is the job of a comedian to cross the line at all times — because that line is not real,” he said.

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 Kathy Griffin Says the Trump Family is Trying to Ruin Her Life appeared first on Law Street.

It seems like every family has them–a treasure trove of embarrassing childhood photos. But what happens when those family photos leave the albums, household frames, or boxes, and make it on to social media? One 18-year-old woman from Austria is upset that her parents have posted a number of embarrassing photos from her childhood on Facebook, and is now suing them over those postings.

The 18-year-old, whose name isn’t being made public right now, claims that her parents have posted over 500 images of her as a child over the last seven years. Those include photos of her doing things like being potty-trained, bathing, and other normal childhood activities. But, she claims that the constant exposure of her photos have “made her life a misery.” The photos are viewable by her parents’ combined 700+ Facebook friends.

The woman told local press:

They knew no shame and no limit–and didn’t care whether it was a picture of me sitting on the toilet or lying naked in my cot–every stage was photographed and then made public.

Her father claims that he owns the copyright to the photos, but she argues that because the photos are of her she has the right to privacy. According to Fusion writer Charles Pulliam-Moore:

The family has a court date set for this November and if a judge rules in the girl’s favor, her parents could be forced to pay their daughter for damages as well as cover the cost of her legal fees. In addition to paying out monetary restitution, the court’s decision could set a precedent for similar legal complaints submitted by children against their parents.

There are plenty of concerns that parents should take into account when posting photos of their children online–such as those photos falling into the wrong hands–but being sued by their children probably wasn’t a previously well known one. While this case is being played out in an Austrian court, it raises important questions about who owns a photo and what decisions parents should be able to make about their children’s digital footprints.

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 Austrian Teen Sues Parents For Posting Embarrassing Childhood Photos appeared first on Law Street.

ICYMI, check out this week’s best articles from Law Street, including ridiculous LSAT anecdotes, shocking news out of Egypt’s hospitals, and how you can be fired for legally smoking weed.

#1 The Most Ridiculous LSAT Stories of the Year

The June 2015 LSAT is over, and approximately 20,000 people are eagerly–or anxiously, depending on how they did–waiting on their results. In the meantime, users of law school forums like Top Law School (TLS) and PowerScore have created post-test impressions and waiter’s threads to pass the time. Read full article here.

#2 The Sad State of Egypt’s Hospitals: Shocking Pictures Released

Doctors need the proper resources to be able to treat their patients. But a new viral Facebook page started in Egypt illustrates that doctors and dentists in that country don’t necessarily have access to what they need. The page is shocking to many, as photos of multiple hospitals in Cairo, Egypt have been shared illustrating that they are unequipped and unsanitary for doctors to properly operate in. Read full article here.

#3 Can You Be Fired For Legal Marijuana Use?

In Colorado and thinking about smoking marijuana after work? Might want to reconsider that. Even though many Colorado residents qualify to use medical marijuana regularly, it can carry many consequences for consumers. In a landmark Colorado Supreme Court decision, Coats v. Dish Network, the court decided that employers can now lawfully terminate employees for using medical marijuana, even if they are off the clock. Read full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

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

Online journalism has opened the door for non-traditional journalists to enter the industry. However, as more and more people trickle into the field, the ethical concerns inherent in journalism evolve as well. Digital media ethics of all kinds exist, they serve to streamline the practices of all sorts of online journalism: blogging, writing, photojournalism, and even social media journalism. Many discussions circle around how online journalists, and those with an audience equal to or even surpassing print journalists, should research, publish, and interact with the text. Read on to learn about how the internet is changing the field of journalism, the basics of journalistic ethics, and what new questions are arising for online journalists.

Changes in the Water

Journalism is transforming at an alarming rate–paper sales of newspapers and magazines are down, and online consumption is at an all-time high. No matter the topic–daily news, celebrity gossip, sports analysis, or even legal news–it’s online. Part of this is because of the turnaround time. No longer is there a need for multiple newspapers depending on the outcome of an event. Instead, a journalist can write, edit, post, and interact on a topic in just a few seconds on social media platforms within minutes on a blog or website.

Change can be difficult to circumvent, especially for those who are used to doing things “the old fashioned way.” Shrinking physical sales equate to shrinking profits from sales, advertising, and usage. Still, online journalism leads to experimentation, integration, and collaboration. Most of the principles taught in college classrooms up until only a few years ago centered on the mass production of newsprint, dating back to the late nineteenth century instead of the current age. Schools are picking up on the advent of digital journalism, teaching ethics, and discussing best practices. Without clear cut guidelines, however, it can be difficult to get everyone to agree on just what the online journalistic ethics actually are and how to implement them. But the question isn’t just how to come up with ethics and how to implement them, but rather: how do we create online journalistic ethics that will work for everyone creating content?

What exactly is online journalism?

Before setting any ethics, there are a few questions to answer. There is a distinct lack of clarity over what it means to be a journalist, mostly among those who actually write, but not as much among those who consume. But still, the questions remain: what is journalism and what is online journalism? Like print journalism, the online variation requires  having the skills to investigate, research, work with technology, and write clearly. Ethics wise, all of these skills are used to verify truth and promote accuracy.

Types of Online Journalism

There are countless different types of online journalism. While this list isn’t exhaustive, some examples include: websites affiliated with major media companies, the websites that mesh articles and blogs, and those websites that are comprised of all blogs.

Traditional News Sites

The Washington Post has been a major American paper for more than a century. It has a completely separate print newspaper from its website and stories that originally premiered on the website rarely, if ever, end up going to the printer; however, stories that run in the newspaper do appear on the website. Some newspapers, such as The New York Times, require readers to subscribe to the service in order to read stories and access some content online. Today this type of journalism has a smaller staff of writers that may also dip into the print writing. As such, many of their ethical issues mirror those of print writers.

Hybrid News Sites

For websites that mix blogs and news articles like the Huffington Post, you will see a combination of ethics coming into play–including those surrounding images and the concerns of a 24-hour news cycle. These websites may pool from a greater number of writers  with a varying amount of skills and knowledge. In addition, they may aggregate content in addition to or instead of creating original content more than traditional news sites.

Comment News Sites

Comment-based news sites, most commonly blogs, are another way to share news. Most often, editorial content that was produced by a variety of journalists is dissected and discussed by the blogger and then through audience participation. This content is often the shortest form of news, ranging up from the 140-character limits of Twitter into full blog postings. Whether or not this is truly journalism is up for debate–but there are definitely bloggers who follow journalistic principles, and those who focus entirely on opinion.

Journalism Code of Ethics

Print journalism has had a code of ethics for decades. As per the Society of Professional Journalists, there are four categories to the code:

Seek Truth and Report it

Whenever possible, journalists need to be able to ensure that what they are reporting is true and reported fairly and accurately, without bias. This includes providing appropriate context, following up on a story if facts evolve, reporting sources fairly,  and avoiding stereotypes and assumptions.

Minimize Harm

Journalists are present to report, but must remain observers. That means that they need to be respectful of the subjects and take precautions such as the ability to “balance a suspect’s right to a fair trial with the public’s right to know.”

Act Independently

This principle is simple–a journalist shouldn’t report on a topic if he or she has a vested interest in it, such as a personal relationship with a subject.

Be Accountable and Transparent

Whenever possible, journalists should allow the public to understand the reasoning behind the information included, and the validity of that information. In addition, journalists have a responsibility to correct any errors they may have made.

While online journalists are still held to these standards, there are additional ethical concerns that online journalists have to take into account; however, many of these ethical concerns fit into the categories of the code.

New Concerns in Online Journalism

Anonymity

Online journalism gives people the chance to be anonymous, and not in a “Dear Abby” sort of way. Anonymity is a prominent facet of the internet. Today, someone can just create a name and start posting content–few would even know if that person isn’t who he or she says wrote the article. Some portals require identification, but it can be as easy as taking someone else’s photo, duping the program with a fake email, and turning off location services.

Anonymity takes away the risk of journalism and allows people to be honest and free with their thoughts; however, some worry it also creates an environment filled with irresponsibility and hurt. Even if online platforms take the extra steps to remove the anonymity of it all, comments and shares aren’t protected from “trolls” or those with ill will.

In addition, it makes many question the validity of online reporting from anonymous platforms. After all, it’s inherently not transparent. Whether or not anonymous journalists can truly be considered “journalists” is a hot topic for debate.

24-Hour News Cycle

The 24-hour news cycle that is possible because of online journalism is also one of the biggest things to cause concern in the online news market. Journalism ethics do require reporters to be accountable and seek to report truthfully, but that becomes more difficult when everything is moving so quickly. Reports, images, and opinions circulate the world faster than ever through Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, blogs, cell phones, and hashtag activism. This speed does not always promote quality, clarity, or accuracy. Instead, it is sometimes a gut reaction to the events at hand, leading to misunderstanding, and at times, fear. Major news sources like CNN often pick up rumors that are later found to be untrue, especially in situations where there is little other information. These reports can cause a “trickle down” effect where incorrect information gets reported once and then repeated, as recently seen in the Ferguson case.

Impartiality: Editors Wanted

When people write about things that they are very passionate about, which is often the case for online journalists, there is a tendency to not remain as impartial as one would wish. Online media sometimes encourages people to tell their opinion and back it up without ever posting the “flip side” of the argument. Many bloggers, in particular, take pride in this, seeing themselves as activists for particular causes or movements, rejecting neutrality; however, that doesn’t neatly fit into the ethical guidelines that require journalists to stay unbiased and truthful.

Of course there has always been an opinion sector in journalism. In fact, some even claim that we are seeing a return to the partisan journalism that colored the profession throughout the early 1900s. Some argue that the responsibility may just fall to the reader on this one: it’s important to search out people on both side of the argument.

Social Media + Reporting = Journalism?

News organizations often send their reporters “into the field” to use social media to pass on information to the general public, creating a brand and influencing traditional reports. Typically they use Twitter, but have been known to use Instagram and even Snapchat as well; however, the new world of online personas creates an ethical gray area.

Take, for example, a reporter who writes political think pieces. In her published articles, she remains impartial on the topic of Hillary Clinton’s presidential run; however, on her Twitter account, she follows @ReadyForHillary and constantly tweets about her desire for Clinton to run. Could these comments give a critic something to chew on regarding authenticity in reporting? In the past, the ability to figure out a writer’s political leanings was much harder because there was less information out there for public consumption.

The ethical challenge for news organizations that use online and offline reporting is to develop social media guidelines that allow reporters or staff members to explore the online media world while also having an online presence. That sometimes means requiring that journalists take on multiple personas, a private one and a public one, in the aims of keeping their public name neutral.

Image Ethics

Photojournalism has only boomed in popularity relatively recently since the start of the internet. Photos and videos now make it easier than ever to capture historical events; however, those same programs that allow us to snap photos and share them in just a few minutes also allow for those photos to be altered and manipulated in a relatively short amount of time. If there was no one else at the event, manipulating an image could manipulate a whole event. Take for instance the latest video of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie falling off of a chair. Said to be punishment for him supporting an opposing football team, the Philadelphia radio station added music and doctored the video, making Christie seem like a clown.

Can news sources trust the images that come from regular citizens? In the past it wasn’t as confusing, as pictures were more difficult to manipulate unless you had intense training. Now, most people know how to use at least some of the tools on Photoshop. According to the Center for Journalism Ethics: “Photojournalists often talk about how it is permitted to change the ‘technical’ aspects of a picture such as altering slightly the tone or color of a photo. But they draw the line at any further changes. Changing the meaning or content of the image so as to mislead viewers is considered unethical.”

Conclusion

In the end, we are left with a lot of questions and very few answers. The problem is that we are currently in the midst of a huge change in journalism. Ten years ago no one would have predicted the rise of websites like Instagram and Twitter because we just didn’t have that technology yet.

Until we have the answers for those questions, and the thousands more that stem from them, the answers of ethics for online journalism is left up to the individual–company, blog, person, or website. Soon enough, we will start to see a convergence on topics like anonymity and image use–it’s already happening. Colleges are slowly rolling out courses only on online journalism. The best we can do, for now, is work with integrity and professionalism and try to hold our news sources to those same standards.

While the principles of journalistic ethics still do hold true, new questions are popping up every day. Journalists do still have an obligation to seek truth and report it, minimize harm, act independently, and be accountable and transparent. The internet may make it more difficult to parse out how those ethics apply in every situation, but they remain the standards of professional journalism.

Resources

Primary

SPJ: Code of Ethics

Additional

MIT: Ethics in Photojournalism: Past, Present, Future

Boise Weekly: Ferguson Case Reveals Media Flaws

Atlantic: How is Social Media Changing Journalism

Huffington Post: Impartial Journalism’s Enduring Value

Huffington Post: Journalism in a New Era

State of Media: Newspapers by the Numbers

Center for Journalism Ethics: Online Journalism Ethics – Photojournalism

Center for Journalism Ethics: Online Journalism Ethics

Poynter: Online Journalism Ethics

SABEW: Online Journalism Poses Challenges, But Doesn’t Require New Ethical Guidelines 

Guardian: Authenticity Has Replaced Authority

Indiana University: Journalism Ethics Cases Online

Editor’s Note: This post has been revised to credit select information to the Center for Journalism Ethics. 

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 What New Ethical Concerns Affect Online Journalism? appeared first on Law Street.

Every now and then Facebook updates its policies. And immediately after that, I notice a series of statuses from my “friends” on Facebook. It’s a sort of notice alerting readers to the fact that the poster believes they have copyright over their own content. I’ve seen a few versions, but the average Facebook copyright status pretty much goes as follows:

Today, November 30, 2014 in response to the Facebook guidelines and under articles L.111, 112 and 113 of the code of intellectual property, I declare that my rights are attached to all my personal data, drawings, paintings, photos, texts etc… published on my profile. For commercial use of the foregoing my written consent is required at all times. Those reading this text can copy it and paste it on their Facebook wall. This will allow them to place themselves under the protection of copyright.

By this release, I tell Facebook that it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, broadcast, or to take any other action against me on the basis of this profile and/or its contents. The actions mentioned above apply equally to employees, students, agents and/or other staff under the direction of Facebook. The contents of my profile includes private information. The violation of my privacy is punished by the law (UCC 1 1-308 – 308 1 – 103 and the Rome Statute). Facebook is now an open capital entity. All members are invited to post a notice of this kind, or if you prefer, you can copy and paste this version. If you have not published this statement at least once, you will tacitly allow the use of elements such as your photos as well as the information contained in your profile.

There are sometimes slight variations in wording, but that’s pretty much what these statuses look like every time. I’ve seen so many in my news feed over the last week that I thought it was time for an important PSA. This status means nothing.

Seriously, it’s the equivalent of typing gibberish into your status. First of all, when you sign up for a website like Facebook, you have to agree to all sorts of terms of use. I know most of us click through those kinds of things without thinking–and understandably so. If we actually read the policies of everything we encountered on the internet in a year, it would take the average American 76 work days. Seventy-six probably very boring work days.

So obviously, most of us don’t read the terms and conditions and privacy policies, and that’s fine. But they do still exist, and they serve to protect both the company–in this case Facebook–as well as the users who implicitly agree to them when they create an account.

Essentially what the BS status says is that even though you post things on Facebook, you still own any intellectual property you post. For example, the copyright to a picture. That’s how the law currently works; however, because you are a member of Facebook.com you agree that Facebook can use your content. As Facebook’s legal terms read:

For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License).

Lots of legal mumbo-jumbo, I know–but here’s what that means. All sorts of different licenses exist on the internet with regard to content that you can use. Here at Law Street, for example, we need to make sure that images you see at the top of our posts are able to be used–we don’t go out and take pictures ourselves most of the time, same as other news organizations. So we use photo-sharing sites like Flickr to find a picture with a license that allows us to use it, as long as we credit the creator. Essentially what Facebook is saying is that all of the content you post can be used by them because they now have a license that allows it. In order to sign up for Facebook, you agree to this. That’s a concession you make to use their product.

So, essentially the status means nothing because both laws and the policies created by Facebook already spell out what can and cannot be done with your photos. Let’s move on to address the fact that what the status does is try to retroactively amend a contract without negotiating. Think of it this way: imagine that you move into a new apartment and sign a lease with your landlord. The lease includes a provision that allows your landlord to show your apartment to prospective new tenants. But after signing that contract, you put up a sign on your door saying your landlord can’t do that. Such an action would absolutely not stand up in court–and that’s pretty much what this Facebook status is.

Listen, I get it. We don’t want anyone else to have ownership or the ability to use our pictures. But that’s how Facebook’s policies are written, and we have agreed to them by creating Facebook accounts. So please, stop posting the status. It really doesn’t do anything, I promise.

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 Please Stop Posting the Facebook Copyright Status appeared first on Law Street.

The popular picture-sharing social network Instagram has definitely cornered the market on sharing brunch memories and beach photos. But now there’s a new, surprising, industry developing from the network that originally made a name for itself with teenage and college-aged girls. Instagram has now become a forum to sell guns.

Gun regulations vary state by state, but many states do not have laws in place governing online sales. While companies and official sellers have laws that they must follow, individual private sellers are not necessarily held to the same constraints. For the most part, the ATF does not get involved in occasional private sales. They encourage sellers to go to a licensed dealer and get a background check for the people to whom they are selling; however, it’s not really enforced. This market, which is at least superficially anonymous, is almost completely unregulated. On Instagram, you can find everything from small handguns to assault rifles.

Sam Hoover from the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, in a statement to the Daily Beast stated, “private sales to in-state buyers are almost completely unregulated by federal law. No background check and no record of sale are required unless state law fills this gap.” That is the venue through which most of these sales are made. Essentially, private sellers are selling firearms almost completely anonymously to people within their state who have no need to pass a background check or anything of the sort.

Online sites that are created for the purpose of sales—for example Craigslist or Ebay—have rules that prohibit the casual selling of firearms. But a site like Instagram, which has no innate sales function, does not have any rules of those sorts.

The issue isn’t that these types of sales are by any means illegal—the issue is that the vast majority of them are. Technology allows a forum for sales that laws never thought to outlaw. Before the Internet, if someone wanted to buy a gun privately, they would have to hear about the sale from a friend, or possibly go to some sort of semi-black marketplace. Laws weren’t created to prevent these kinds of sales, because they were relatively sparse. Now, with the Internet, these sales are incredibly easy to complete. Just searching Instagram for the keywords, or tags, that indicate sales, yields the ability to purchase firearms.

The actual magnitude of this marketplace is unknown—the Daily Beast reported as though there were many sales happening each week, while a Slate article disagreed and estimated that only a few sales happened in a given week. Regardless of who’s right, these sales do appear to happen. And if they happen on Instagram, a site that is a social network and by no means created for sales, there’s every possibility that they could be happening on other forums.

There have been a few select cases of legal action being pursued against sellers on Instagram. A few months ago, a rapper and DJ in Brooklyn, NY, talked about selling guns on Instagram and Youtube. Authorities went forward with a gun bust that resulted in a net raid of 254 guns. Because these were not simply occasional sales made between individuals, charges could be pressed. Unfortunately, that will not be the case with most of these gun sales.

—

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 [Brent Danley 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 Follow Your Friends…And Arms Dealers on Instagram appeared first on Law Street.