The Pittsburgh Penguins seemingly thought it was a fun idea to add real, live penguins to the pre-game celebration of a recent hockey game. But animal rights activists disagreed. The penguins–the human team–played the Philadelphia Flyers in Pittsburgh last Saturday. The local zoo pitched in by delivering some penguins to play on the ice, but the pre-game show also included fireworks and pyrotechnics.

A video clip from the event shows the penguins reacting to the explosion and flapping their wings in alarm. This caused PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, to send a letter to the CEO of the Pittsburgh Penguins in which it states that it is obvious that the penguins are “scrambling in terror.”

Everything about this is terrible. pic.twitter.com/RRYJSDaCeh

— m g (@kikkerlaika) February 26, 2017

The PETA letter continued:

It’s inherently stressful for wild animals–who naturally shun contact with humans and are extremely sensitive to environmental changes–to be hauled around, used as props, and exposed to noisy crowds.

PETA also criticized the Pittsburgh Zoo for allowing its animals to be treated like this. The zoo replied in a statement of its own, saying:

The penguins who attended the Winter Classic are some of the same penguins that participate in our weekend Penguins on Parade event. They are very comfortable around people and noises.

ACTUAL PENGUINS! #StadiumSeries pic.twitter.com/7VA5o9NKCR

— NHL (@NHL) February 26, 2017

The statement from the zoo said that the penguins’ reaction to the fireworks is similar to that of humans’ when they are startled and that it only took a few seconds before they were playing again. It also said that it was a “great enrichment opportunity for our penguins to be introduced to new sounds, sights and smells.”

PETA asked the Pittsburgh Penguins not to use live animals for promotion of its team in the future, but a spokesman for the team and one for the NHL said they didn’t have anything to add to the zoo’s statement. PETA has long campaigned for sports teams to stop using live animals as mascots at events, but it doesn’t seem like the sports world is ready to give that tradition up just yet.

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 The Pittsburgh Penguins Borrowed Live Penguins, PETA is Not Happy appeared first on Law Street.

Is Hillary Okay?!?

It was an eerie sight to see Hillary Clinton, whose historical nomination inspired the world, nearly collapse to the ground Sunday morning during a 9/11 memorial service.

No matter how people feel about Clinton as a candidate, many were worried about her health and well-being. Others continued the rumors that Clinton was seriously ill with a more serious disease and questioned her overall fitness for the White House. But her doctors have diagnosed her with ‘walking pneumonia’ and suspect she will recover soon.

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: September 12, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Two of the trendiest topics in tech and innovation–Uber and self-driving cars–are set to combine in Pittsburgh. Uber is aiming to place 100 self-driving cars in the city for use by Uber customers, although it’s important to note that for right now, the driverless cars will contain drivers who are prepared to take over in case that anything goes wrong, as well as co-pilots who will monitor and observe the car. While driverless cars have been talked about for a few years at this point, the company’s giant leap into actually offering self-driving Ubers to its customers–even at a test level–is a major step.

Uber has been working with about 50 researchers and engineers from Carnegie Mellon University’s robotics department to develop the system, and while it’s being tested out, Uber self-driving car rides will be free. The plan is that even when Uber begins to charge for the trips, they’ll still be cheaper than traditional rideshare prices. Additionally, rather than make its own self-driving cars, Uber is just attaching driverless capabilities to regular cars–specifically “100 modified Volvo XC90s outfitted with self-driving equipment.”

According to Bloomberg News, the set up will be:

For now, Uber’s test cars travel with safety drivers, as common sense and the law dictate. These professionally trained engineers sit with their fingertips on the wheel, ready to take control if the car encounters an unexpected obstacle. A co-pilot, in the front passenger seat, takes notes on a laptop, and everything that happens is recorded by cameras inside and outside the car so that any glitches can be ironed out. Each car is also equipped with a tablet computer in the back seat, designed to tell riders that they’re in an autonomous car and to explain what’s happening.

This is obviously still a work in progress in many ways. There are a lot of hurdles to get over before driverless cars actually become a realistic form of transportation–including legal concerns, as only a few states have authorized self-driving cars. But Uber’s taking a gutsy step, and next time you’re in Pittsburgh, you may end up in an Uber that’s a preview of the future of ridesharing.

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 Self-Driving Ubers to Launch in Pittsburgh…Sort Of appeared first on Law Street.

In an attempt to get American cities thinking about the future of transportation, the federal government initiated a contest last December. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) launched the Smart City Challenge, which asked cities to come up with new and innovative transportation solutions, with particular emphasis on self-driving vehicles. The competition drew 78 different cities (or teams of cities) as applicants, and US Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx just announced seven finalists who will move on to the next stage of the competition.

The cities who made the finals are: Austin, Texas; Columbus, Ohio; Denver, Colorado; Kansas City, Missouri; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Portland, Oregon; and San Francisco, California. Although there were originally only supposed to be five finalists, these seven were chosen because of the strengths of their proposals.

Each city that made it to this level in the competition will receive $100,000 to further develop their plans, as well as DOT help. The overall winner could get up $50 million to implement their innovative transportation solution. The other 71 cities that entered the contest will also most likely get some federal funding help with their transportation systems as well.

There were a wide range of different proposals offered; according to the Washington Post’s Michael Laris:

The plans are ambitious and varied, from Columbus’s push to build a network of on-demand driverless shuttles to Portland’s plan to connect electric vehicle charging stations to its streetlight system.

The contest was inspired by the fact that a 2015 DOT study found that many American cities are unprepared for imminent transportation trends, including increased urbanization, denser neighborhoods, and an older population. According to a statement Foxx gave to Gizmodo:

For a long time these cities have felt very powerless seeing congestion and travel times going up and haven’t had the resources to aggressively tackle those things. We’re saying, if you’ve got a creative idea to answer those challenges, let’s see how we can help.

It will be interesting to see what kind of plans the seven finalist cities are able to implement. They could be the first steps in widespread transportation innovation in the U.S.

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 Smart City Challenge Finalists Announced appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

I am an avid social media user. I love all things social media but I have yet to cross the line into obsessively taking selfies and sending them off to anyone, let alone posting them all over the Internet. In today’s world it is almost impossible to find someone who has not taken one selfie and sent it to at least one other person. But one teen not only crossed the line in selfie etiquette, he showed how much he doesn’t value life.

Maxwell Morton, 16, faces first-degree murder charges, in addition to charges of criminal homicide and possession of a weapon by a minor, after shooting Ryan Mangan, who was also 16, last Wednesday.

A funeral was held for Mangan on Monday in a small town just outside of Pittsburgh.

Morton was dumb enough to photograph what he had done and then used the popular social media app SnapChat to send it to another boy. SnapChat allows the user to send a multi-media message that disappears within a few seconds once the recipient opens it. Thankfully the young man that Morton sent the image to was smart enough to save the image, show his mom, and then contact the police.

Morton also had taken a photo of himself with the 9 mm pistol that was used in the shooting, which was later found on the camera roll on his phone.

The amount of disregard for human life that Morton has is just sickening, and the fact that more and more social media is used for this kind of thing makes me want to delete all my apps and go back to an old school flip phone that would only allow you to make calls or send text messages..

Morton is being charged as an adult and could face up to life in prison. Life in prison. I think he deserves the death penalty. Something that the state of Pennsylvania does in fact still have in effect. Pennsylvania ranks 26 in executions for the past five years.

I have to wonder where this kids parents were, why he wanted to kill Mangan and where did he get the gun? Only time will tell.

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 Teen Murder Suspect Takes Selfie With Victim appeared first on Law Street.

In an ironic twist of punny fate, the University of Pittsburgh, endearingly nicknamed “Pitt,” is beginning to gain a reputation that is now (you got it)…the pits. As is common at institutions of higher education, the University of Pittsburgh possesses significant resources, allowing for in-depth research in various fields. All of that sounds wonderfully intellectual and peachy…until the bill comes. Research is expensive and so, as one might have guessed, grants and other federal support pick up the tab.

Now, this may sound like a lot more accounting than law: How much money will it cost in grants to develop IP that will make more money? Pitt claimed earlier this month though, that in order to ensure the receipt of federal research funding, all faculty members must offer their signatures in accord with school policies—including signing away their intellectual property rights.

The university advised faculty and nonclerical employees to sign documents upholding that they “irrevocably assign and transfer to the university my rights, title and interest to all intellectual property” they develop while employed at the educational institution. With so much research happening at this school, signing this document may mean signing away rights to a medical cure, a scientific discovery or any other intangible yet valuable IP treasure.

Pitt stands behind its presentation of these agreements to faculty, explaining that these arrangements are consistent with its standard intellectual property policies. The school’s administration also says that their request for signatures simply stems from a 2011 Supreme Court case (Stanford v. Roche) affirming that schools must implement IP policies and ensure compliance with said policies.

The signatures are not actually required to secure grant funding, however. Therefore, many are opposed to this idea, including former president of the American Association of University Professors, Cary Nelson, who expressed his sentiments to  the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. “Everyone says your academic freedom gives you the right to decide which kind of research you do”, Nelson says. “Your academic freedom doesn’t end when you create something valuable. It extends to how that [research] enters the world.”

Others who support the school argue that the relinquishment of personal intellectual property rights is appropriate as it qualifies as a term of employment. In addition, some maintain that Pitt deserves the profit because it grants access to the research resources, crediting Pitt with creating an environment that fosters the IP.

In its own defense, the University of Pittsburgh has cited numerous other colleges with similar agreements in place.

The University of Pittsburgh is no stranger to IP drama. In January, a research team sued the school over intellectual property rights to research that shows promise for a  new lung disease vaccine.

At Pitt’s faculty assembly meeting, the deadline for collected signatures was postponed from its original deadline of September 16, allowing for more time to examine the agreements. A panel was asked to recommend new policies by September 30. The decision to reexamine this procedure came after the University was met with complaints by faculty members who were upset to learn that failure to turn in a signed document by the original deadline would result in the school’s “inability” (or seemingly, unwillingness) to process their federal grant proposals.

Pitt’s existing IP policy states that the inventor “will normally receive 30 percent and the university 70 percent of the net financial returns from the licensing or other transfer of patent rights or other intellectual property rights.” Although the idea of a ratio seems archaic in a world where various forms of IP are everywhere, assessment for compensation on a case-by-case basis drains university resources, as well.

With exactly one week left until the reform deadline, we’ll just have to wait and see who fares better in this IP policy pitfall.

The post New University of Pittsburgh Policies Require Faculty to Sign Away IP Rights appeared first on Law Street.

Parents don’t have the luxury of choosing where they are when their babies drop the bomb. When nature calls, mothers and fathers alike run to restrooms to change dirty diapers, soothing both their babies and the ears of the public. But fathers across the nation have long been frustrated by the lack of changing tables in men’s restrooms. Lawmakers across the country are finally starting to right this wrong.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 90 percent of fathers who live with children under the age of five change diapers. When a father goes to change his baby’s diaper at the pizza place in town, he’s forced to either struggle on a dirty bathroom floor or balance the baby on his lap. He has a right to be frustrated, because if he was a she, it probably wouldn’t be such a struggle.

Currently there is no federal or state legislation mandating gender-based accessibility to changing tables. But as equality in parenting increases, we may need to make some changes. California State Senators Lois Wolk and Ricardo Lara support legislation to require adequate baby diaper changing stations in public restrooms, regardless of gender. Bills 1350 and 1358 recently passed out of the California Senate Transportation and Housing Committee with bipartisan support.

Bill Breakdown

If they pass the California Assembly, the bills would go into effect on January 1, 2015. Senate Bill 1350, backed by Lara, mandates that public accommodations that undertake substantial renovations (exceeding $10,000) or install new restrooms assure open access to baby changing stations regardless of restroom gender assignment.

Senator Wolk supports the more stringent bill, 1358. Under this legislation, all public accommodations would require “…mandatory building standards for the installation of baby diaper changing accommodations in restroom facilities…” This bill would create a ripple effect by making more baby changing stations available to modern families.

This isn’t the first time a region has tried to create equality for men on diaper-duty. Pittsburgh City Councilor Natalia Rudiak proposed a bill in July 2013 that would require all city-owned buildings and facilities to offer baby changing stations for both men and women. In response to those opposed to the bill, Rudiak said the stations were fairly low-cost and would not require extensive construction.

Likewise, in July 2013, Miami-Dade County, Florida passed the Baby-Diaper Changing Accommodations Ordinance, which requires all businesses to provide baby changing stations in men’s, women’s, and unisex restrooms. Businesses in violation of the ordinance must pay a Civil Penalty of $500. The efforts of these Pittsburgh and Miami-Dade legislators are just some of the first in an effort to make parenting easier for both moms and dads.

Diaper Dads

Fathers across the nation are pleased by these new efforts. Several daddy bloggers track restrooms with diaper changing stations in restaurants, movie theaters, businesses, and other public buildings. One blogger who calls himself  “daddydoinwork,” called on his fellow fathers to publicize the lack of changing tables in men’s restrooms in order to create change.

The Pew Research Center conducted a study in 2013 and discovered that there are more than 2.6 million single fathers in the United States. The number of fathers who act as primary caregivers is increasing–especially as our modern society becomes more accepting of single parenting and homosexual parenting. Furthermore, the trend of stay-at-home-dads is rising–they comprise a total 3.5 percent of married couples with children in which one parent works full-time.

Our ever-changing society requires complimentary progress in our public facilities. This is no grand task–baby changing tables are easily installed and low-cost. If fathers were given more opportunities to easily change their babies’ diapers, establishments would better fulfill their responsibilities to serve the public’s needs. Businesses should also follow the lead–help out our diaper duty dads, and maybe they’ll leave a nice tip.

—

Natasha Paulmeno (@natashapaulmeno)

Featured image courtesy of [Tex Batmart via Flickr]

Natasha Paulmeno

Natasha Paulmeno is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends. Contact Natasha at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Good but Stinky Step for Parenting Equality appeared first on Law Street.