As a politician, there is a base expectation that–at one point or another–you will have to pick a side on a variety of different issues. Are you pro-choice or pro-life? What do you think about single-payer healthcare? Should recreational marijuana use be legalized? Yet even with this understanding, Utah state Representative Craig Hall must have been surprised when he had to step forward as an active proponent of sunscreen use.

Hall has four red-headed school-aged children and currently lives in the state with the highest rate of melanoma in the United States. He has even said that he buys sunscreen “in the Costco size,” so his seemingly-peculiar stance should not be a shock to anyone. But Hall cemented himself into this position earlier this year when he introduced legislation this year to allow kids to bring sunscreen to school.

“My colleagues’ first reaction to this bill was mostly, ‘Seriously? We need a bill for this?'” he told PBS Stateline.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration classifies sunscreen as an over-the-counter drug product–right alongside ibuprofen or cough syrup–which means that students from kindergarten to 12th grade cannot bring it to school without a doctor’s note. Even with a note, it must be applied under the supervision of a school nurse.

Under this new sunscreen bill, students would be allowed to bring and self-apply their own sunscreen, without a parent or physician’s authorization. If need be, someone working at the school could help apply sunscreen on the student if a parent or legal guardian provides a signed consent form saying so. It was officially signed into law back in March and started a trend among other states to amend their sunscreen-in-school laws.

Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, and Washington have all enacted measures that followed Utah’s example within the last four months. They joined California, New York, Oregon and Texas, which already have lifted the ban on sunscreen in school. Terry Cronin, a Melbourne, Florida, dermatologist and head of the advocacy working group for the dermatologic surgery society, attributes the quick results to how easy the issue is to get behind.

“It’s an issue that doesn’t seem to be politically divisive at all,” said Cronin. “Everybody sees that kids need to be protected from skin cancer and they should be protected with sunscreen.”

But sunscreen bills still face some roadblocks in legislatures across the country. One such bill in Mississippi cleared the Senate but died in a House committee, and a bill introduced in Georgia has stalled. In Rhode Island–where outdoor recess is mandated state-wide–a sunscreen bill was held up because the state’s association of school nurses cited concerns of potential allergies among students.

Some of the bills have continued to face challenges, even after they have become law. While many California school districts updated their sunscreen policies as a result of Billy’s Bill for Sun Safety–the nation’s first sunscreen bill enacted by the state in 2002–surveys have discovered that “many schools had not changed their practices even though the district had changed its policy,” said Jeff Ashley, a Burbank, California, dermatologist. Ashley believes this is because schools don’t want to become babysitters.

Even so, states such as Illinois, Ohio, and Massachusetts are still pushing for change. Dr. Henry Lim, president of the American Academy of Dermatology, said that the risk of developing melanoma in adulthood is strongly related to a history of sunburns as a child and teen.

“Children’s skin is much thinner, so the ability for the sun to penetrate the skin is significantly higher as compared to adults,” he said. “Having availability for kids to be able to use sunscreen saves them from a lot of sun damage and saves them from the development of skin cancer.”

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post States Push to Allow Kids to Use Sunscreen in Schools appeared first on Law Street.

All Cannabis in America coverage is written by Alexis Evans and Alec Siegel and brought to you by Law Street Media.

State of Weed: Watch

Maryland Lawmakers Push For Recreational Marijuana 

During a news conference last week, a trio of Democratic Maryland lawmakers said they would introduce two pieces of legislation: one to tax recreational marijuana sales, and another to regulate a legal market. The bills would regulate and tax marijuana like alcohol: use would be permitted for adults 21 and up, and it would be illegal to consume marijuana in public. Cultivators would pay a $30 per ounce excise tax, and there would be a 9 percent sales tax levied on retail products.

Will Rhode Island Reject Recreational Weed…Again?

After multiple failed attempts, Rhode Island could finally legalize recreational marijuana. State Representatives Scott Slater (D-Providence) and Joshua Miller (D-Providence) have proposed a new measure to legalize recreational marijuana for those 21 years and older. The Cannabis Regulation, Control, and Taxation Act will include mandatory product testing and labeling, restrictions on advertising, funding to law enforcement, limits on THC quantity per product, and mandatory reviews for all sale products.

Hawaii Approves First Two Medical Dispensaries 

After two years of waiting, Maui Wellness Group, d.b.a. Maui Grown Therapies, and Aloha Green Holdings on Oahu have been given the green light from the Hawaii State Department of Health to begin growing medical marijuana. The state legalized dispensaries in 2015, and sales were originally set to begin in July 2016. However, growers were still waiting on a seed-to-sale tracking system to be implemented, which stalled the approval.

All links are to primary sources. For more information on state laws for possessing, selling, and cultivating marijuana, click here to read “The State of Weed: Marijuana Legalization State by State.”

Law Street Cannabis Coverage

Recreational Marijuana is Officially Legal in Maine

By Alec Siegel

After nearly three months of being suspended in legislative limbo, Maine’s recreational marijuana bill officially went into effect on January 30. People 21 and older can now possess up to two and a half ounces of cannabis; they can also grow up to six mature plants, and 12 immature plants. But after Governor Paul LePage signed a moratorium on January 27, retail sales of marijuana will be frozen until February 2018, giving lawmakers time to close any loopholes that appeared in the original legalization measure.

Will New Mexico Legalize Recreational Marijuana Next?

Israeli Government Will Pay $2 Million to Fund Medical Cannabis Research

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 Cannabis in America February 2017: Which State Will Be Next to Legalize? appeared first on Law Street.

The five structures rise out of the Atlantic Ocean, in a perfect horizontal line. They look like toy pinwheels when viewed from the coast. But these five behemoths are certainly not toys–they’re the country’s first offshore wind turbines, spinning and generating power off the coast of Block Island, Rhode Island, a tiny vacation hamlet sandwiched between Long Island to the west and Martha’s Vineyard to the east.

“Rhode Island is proud to be home to the nation’s first offshore wind farm–and I’m proud to be the only governor in America who can say we have steel in the water and blades spinning over the ocean,” said Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo, in a statement from Deepwater Wind, the company that built the wind farm. The turbines were completed in August, testing was completed by October, and on Monday, they finally started spinning.

This is America’s very first offshore wind farm, off the coast of Rhode Island, which came online this week https://t.co/hfiGy197Ld

— Sustainable Business (@GuardianSustBiz) December 13, 2016

Block Island’s residents previously relied on diesel-fueled generators to power their homes, but with Deepwater Wind’s groundbreaking project, 17,000 homes, or 90 percent of the island’s electricity needs, will be generated by the powerful gales that blow just off the coast. Still, Rhode Island is the smallest state in the country, and the wind farm is expected to generate only one percent of the state’s electricity. The $300 million project is set to shave off 40,000 tons of carbon emissions each year, according to Deepwater Wind.

With the environmental costs of fossil fuels becoming increasingly clear to scientists, politicians and private companies are working in concert to embark on job-creating projects that provide energy from clean sources. “With this project, we’ve put hundreds of our local workers to work at-sea and at our world-class ports and are growing this innovative industry. I applaud Deepwater Wind for leading the way,” Raimondo said.

Wind farms already dot the country, with more springing up over the past few years. There are about 50,000 turbines on U.S. land, supplying roughly five percent of the country’s energy. But while offshore farms are more expensive to build, and more difficult, they have a significant upside, as winds are stronger and more consistent over water than land, and offshore turbines could generate much more power than those on land.

While many Republicans deny or downplay the effects of climate change, offshore wind farm projects have attracted bi-partisan support. Governor Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat of New York, set a goal for 50 percent of New York’s energy to be generated by renewable sources by 2030. And Governor Charlie Baker of Massachusetts, a Republican, signed a bill that orders state utility companies to work with offshore wind farms companies.

Many subsidized renewable energy undertakings are built on a policy drafted by the Republican-led Congress under President George W. Bush, the 2005 Energy Policy Act, which provides “loan guarantees for entities that develop or use innovative technologies that avoid the by-production of greenhouse gases.”

“As the Ocean State, we’re motivated by our shared belief that we need to produce and consume cleaner, more sustainable energy and leave our kids a healthier planet,” Raimondo said. 

Alec Siegel

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

The post First Offshore Wind Farm in the U.S. Begins Operations in Rhode Island appeared first on Law Street.

When the topic of prostitution comes up in conversation, most typically do not consider it a potential career option. Instead, we tend to think of prostitutes as young girls who are exploited and forced into prostitution by older men. The victims and villains are clearly cast. This situation is all too common and many young women around the world– and yes, even here in the United States–are kept as sex slaves.

But there are also prostitutes who choose sex work as a profession: people, and not just women, who were not forced into becoming prostitutes but chose that as their career. And then there are people in the middle. People who were coerced into prostitution by economic circumstances but not outright force. Individuals who may want to leave but have no other options to fall back on and no social services to help them.

All three of these sets of circumstances need to be dealt with. Victims who have been enslaved, people who see prostitution as their vocation, and those in the middle. Policy initiatives and laws that attempt to deal with the sex trade need to come up with a way to address the needs of these three communities. Which policies provide the best supports for all three kinds of prostitution? Is there a way to eliminate abuse while empowering free choice?

Models for Prostitution

There are several different models to choose from in crafting legal and social policy to deal with prostitution. One method is to criminalize both the purchase and sale of sex. This approach is based on the notion that individuals on both sides of the issue are criminals and immoral actors. This view of prostitution, a Victorian morality model, is the least popular. People still often have a moral problem with prostitution but generally view the relationship as one of exploitation, rejecting the view that a prostitute is just as morally guilty as a pimp.

The more popular view of prostitution is that the purchaser and the facilitator (typically called a trafficker or a pimp) are the criminals and the person being sold for sex is the victim. This innocent victim model is the view that underlies efforts to either partially or completely decriminalize prostitution while promoting “end demand” initiatives. Those who hold this view want facilitators and purchasers to be punished in a variety of ways but would not punish prostitutes themselves.

This view is encapsulated by the following clip of a “20/20” documentary on prostitution. The prostitutes interviewed are portrayed as women who were victimized and ones we should be sympathetic toward.

The third model of prostitution is one that acknowledges the existence of non-victim prostitutes, an entrepreneur model, which therefore advocates for the legalization of prostitution. This model is the most controversial because it would place prostitution on the same moral footing as other “vice” crimes, such as gambling. This would mean viewing it as something we may not personally like, but isn’t quite immoral enough to justify banning entirely. The moral stigma against prostitution is so heavily ingrained in our culture that most people reject the argument like, ‘it’s okay, it’s just like cigarettes really,’ on their face. But, the argument that prostitution isn’t as morally bad as cigarettes would not get much traction either.

Models for Policy

Recent efforts have been made in the United States to decriminalize prostitution and to push new “end demand” initiatives. Most of these efforts are actually efforts to decriminalize the sale of sex, as was done in Sweden, but keep trafficking or purchasing as punishable offenses. “End demand” initiatives seek to increase the penalties for clients who buy sex in an effort to make its purchase so costly and difficult that clients stop engaging in it. The hope is if clients do not feel that they can safely purchase sex, the industry will starve. As the demand for these services decreases, the incentive for traffickers and pimps to exploit sex workers will also dissipate.

End demand policies use a variety of instruments to make purchasing sex more difficult or costly. Fines, jail time, rehabilitation for solicitors, and good old-fashioned shaming like publishing offenders names in newspapers have all been used. But there isn’t any clear and convincing evidence that these methods actually do reduce the demand for sex work. On the contrary, there is some evidence that it may be making conditions for sex workers worse. While ending demand may free a sex worker from fear of prosecution, it keeps the pressure on clients, which may actually drive the market for sex even further into the shadows.

In Illinois, advocates of these initiatives, such as the Chicago Alliance Against Sexual Exploitation, go further in their attempts to end the demand for prostitution by trying to instill in young men the belief that buying sex is wrong. These campaigns are part of a larger sex-education plan that seeks to make commercial sex stigmatic not only for the prostitute but for potential clients as well. Legal changes are an important component, but cultural changes are also emphasized.

The biggest criticism of these efforts is that they do not help sex workers. Making it more difficult for clients to purchase sex not only affects the buyer but also the seller. One drawback for the sex worker is less time and transparency to negotiate. Because the rationale behind these policies is based on a model of prostitution involving a pimp-victim relationship, the end demand efforts don’t want to facilitate better discussions between clients and prostitutes. Some sex workers argue that these laws make their conditions less safe.

The other option is to legalize prostitution entirely. The following interview with Maggie McNeill, author of the blog The Honest Courtesan, does an excellent job of summarizing the viewpoint of those who argue that some voluntarily engage in prostitution and think it should be legalized.

The argument in favor of legalizing prostitution is best viewed as an argument in favor of the freedom to contract. It removes the moral stigma from prostitution found in both the Victorian and the end demand models and replaces them with a model of prostitution that includes those who freely choose it as a career. The entrepreneur model would argue that if a person wants to sell a sex act they should be free to do so–just as they are free to sell other personal services. There is also evidence in places where prostitution was legalized, as we saw in Rhode Island from 2003 to 2009, that the conditions for sex workers improve and violent crime is reduced.

This view does not deny that there are people, particularly women and children, who are enslaved as prostitutes. There are significant issues with the rape and abuse of prostitutes globally and in the United States, but supporters of the entrepreneurial model argue that the legal framework for combatting these abuses already exists. For example, to form a contract to commission a piece of artwork the purchaser and the buyer both need to be able to consent. Those who can’t consent because of age or mental incapacity can’t form that contract for art. Similarly, they wouldn’t be able to form that contract to sell or buy sex.

But for those concerned about violence and exploitation, to say that contract laws are enough of a tool to protect children from rape and trauma is insufficient. In fact, the most compelling criticism of this approach is that it does not do enough to combat violence. Other approaches may over-correct by disallowing voluntary prostitution, but that may be a better alternative for those whose primary goal is to end sexual violence.

The Murky Middle

There is perhaps a middle ground between the view of prostitution as pure victimhood and prostitution as the empowered entrepreneur. It’s a model that acknowledges the murky middle in which people become sex workers out of economic necessity, not through enslavement, but who may still need additional protections that are not present in other service industries should also be explored.

In contract law, a contract that is entered into because the defendant coerced the plaintiff with the threat of economic harm can be voided under the doctrine of “economic duress.” It’s a form duress that isn’t quite duress, yet may still be grounds to void a contract. However, it isn’t a very popular doctrine because it is so vague.

The court can grant relief to the plaintiff if they can show evidence of coercion or intimidation. This is not saying that the person is incapable of entering into any contract or that they would always be the victim in a contractual exchange. Rather, it merely acknowledges that in this particular contract his or her consent was not freely given and some restitution should be made.

Similarly, a middle-ground approach would acknowledge that there are contracts for sex that are entered into where both parties provide full consent. Those contracts, like the vast majority of contracts that we engage in every day with varying degrees of formality, would not need to be challenged. They may need to be regulated or taxed, like any other business, but they are not inherently void because of their subject matter.

This approach would also acknowledge that many of these contracts may be the product of coercion. In those cases, legal remedies to prosecute crimes such as rape, kidnapping, and theft should be employed. If they aren’t yet tough enough to bring violent criminals to justice, or not written in such a way to include crimes against sex workers, then they should be strengthened. Societal remedies and safety nets also need to be expanded so that sex workers who were victims of crimes can get some help, and so those who are at risk of becoming the victims of sexual slavery are prevented from becoming victims. Any change in policy, whatever the moral model it is based on, needs to include more tools for law enforcement to combat sex slavery. But supporting a vigorous effort to punish traffickers and slave traders isn’t tied to one set of policies for prostitution.

A great example of a combination approach to prostitution is how New Zealand treated the issue in 2003. According to the New Zealand’s Prostitute Collective, the sex workers of New Zealand gave input on the new laws in a push to reform local laws and policies. The results are a mixed bag of protections for sex workers, which also presuppose that there is a unique ethical concern with selling sex. For example, a sex worker cannot be compelled to have sex with a particular client and cannot have pay reduced for refusing sex with a particular client.

The law also adds in protections for sex workers under the age of 18 while borrowing from the end demand legislation ethos. It is a criminal offense for a manager or brothel owner to hire someone under the age of 18 for sex, or to pay for their services as a client. But it isn’t illegal to sell sex if you are under 18, meaning that punishment rests solely on the purchasers and traffickers.

Conclusion

The debate over how to deal with prostitution is an ongoing policy problem for everyone concerned about human trafficking. It also is an example of how moral sentiments and the way they can clash with modern interpretations of personal freedom can impact policy decisions.

Our culture makes intense moral judgments about sex workers. When we refer to someone as a “whore” it usually is not a comment on that person’s actual profession but meant as an insult. These moral judgments are unlikely to change in the near future and certainly won’t change just because a law or policy changes. But changes in policy can have a profound impact on the lives and safety of our citizens as evidenced by the dramatic change in the number of rapes in Rhode Island when prostitution was accidentally legalized. Whether they represent a true reduction in violence or a shifting of violence from a non-paid victim to a paid one is still debated. But if the goal is to craft a policy that will reduce violent crime and end sexual slavery then these various methods of doing so need to be debated on their practical merits as well as their moral implications.

Resources

Law Street Media: Prostitution: Should It Be Legalized or Criminalized?

BAYSWAN: Initiatives to “End Demand” For Prostitution Harm Women And Undermine Service Programs

GAATW: Moving Beyond Supply and Demand Catchphrases

CAASE: End Demand Illinois 

The Stranger: Sex Workers Write Open Letters To Law Makers Over End Demand Bills

The Honest Courtesan

CATW International: Ending The Demand

Hughes, Hubbard, and Reed: The Economic Duress Doctrine- A U.S. Perspective

Cato Unbound: Perverse Incentives: Sex Work And The Law

The New York Times: A Misguided Moral Crusade

The Washington Post: When Rhode Island Accidentally Legalized Prostitution Rape Decreased Sharply

The Huffington Post: 9 Things You Did Not Know About American Prostitution

The New Zealand’s Prostitute Collective: The Prostitution Reform Act 2003

Mary Kate Leahy

Mary Kate Leahy (@marykate_leahy) has a J.D. from William and Mary and a Bachelor’s in Political Science from Manhattanville College. She is also a proud graduate of Woodlands Academy of the Sacred Heart. She enjoys spending her time with her kuvasz, Finn, and tackling a never-ending list of projects. Contact Mary Kate at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Prostitution: Should The “World’s Oldest Profession” Be a Profession? appeared first on Law Street.

Schools have become a frightening place for parents to send their children. From the horrors of lives lost at Sandy Hook Elementary, to those mourned at Columbine, to the controversies faced with “No Child Left Behind” and the Common Core curriculum, there’s now the terror that the people who take care of and teach our children could sexually abuse such innocent and unsuspecting lives.

On December 23, 2015, St. George’s School, an elite Newport, Rhode Island prep school unveiled an investigative report recognizing that 26 credible witnesses/individuals have come forward “strongly suggesting” that there were six perpetrators, who were employees of St. George’s School, that “engaged in sexual misconduct” with a number of students. Firsthand accounts and corroborating evidence depict that there were a total of 23 victims. The scope of the scandal has greatly increased since the release of the report, as a rising total of at least 40 St. George’s alumni have since come forth with credible accounts of sexual misconduct, even allegations of rape, by a total of seven St. George employees.

While St. George’s sincerely apologized to the victims in the report it released and offered immediate counseling to the individuals that underwent traumatic events as a result of unreported sexual misconduct spanning several decades, victims demanded more. Some of the victims viewed the investigation conducted by St. George to be “a sanitized version of events and said it was not truly independent because it was conducted by a lawyer, Will Hannum, whose partner is the school’s counsel.” As such, a new, comprehensive, and independent investigation will be conducted into the allegations of sexual misconduct–it was just announced that Scott Harshburger, a former Attorney General of Massachusetts, will be the investigator.

The discrepancies in the total number of victims, as well as the number of perpetrators, suggest that there could be unchecked allegations pertaining to the longstanding reporting of the alleged incidents. Leslie Heaney, a 1992 graduate of St. George and current chairwoman of the school’s board of trustees stated, “the board is committed to a truly impartial investigation. There is nothing more important to us than that the review be thorough and exhaustive, and that its findings are found to be reliable and credible by all parties, particularly the victims.”

Reports suggest that the sexual misconduct took place from 1974-2004. Of the seven former St. George’s employees reported to have been involved in sexual misconduct, only four are still alive. Furthermore, the misconduct resulting in the termination of each former employee was allegedly never reported to any authorities nor were potential future employers, other schools and educational settings, warned about the sexual misconduct against minors done at the hands of the perpetrators that they potentially hired. The victims’ attorneys have noted that the Massachusetts legislature is currently considering what is known as the “pass the trash” bill–which refers to the practice of passing on teachers that have been terminated or dismissed for inappropriate conduct and behavior unbecoming of a professional in an education setting without reporting such problems and potentially putting others in jeopardy. The bill would work to criminalize a failure to report a complaint of sexual misconduct in private and public schools–maybe it would be worth considering a similar act in other states.

Victims are calling for the head of the school, Eric Peterson, to resign. They believe that he has played a part in covering up the incidents and being quite unresponsive to the complaints made against St. George’s former employees. However, the school has indicated that Peterson will not resign or be required to resign, that he has greatly supported the “vigorous investigation of alleged sexual abuse,” and has been very compassionate and empathetic toward all of the victims that have come forward about with allegations of sexual misconduct.

Sexual abuse of children in the education system, particularly in private schools that have the discretion to report such misconduct, is becoming the boogeyman of primary education concerns as media coverage of such incidents continues to increase. Even more frightening is the fact that the perpetrators of sexual misconduct of students and children tend to be individuals either employed or associated with schools–i.e. teachers, coaches, student aides and workers, as well as administrative staff. Additionally, state legislatures’ decisions can create very unsettling gaps in protection from sexual misconduct against students. For example, in New York State, where there are approximately 2,161 private schools attended by over 492,000 children, private school students are excluded from the State’s Education Law 23-B, entitled “Child Abuse in an Educational Setting” which only applies to public and charter schools, leaving private school students subject to sexual misconduct abuses without protection. Various organizations have taken on lobbying efforts to raise awareness of such gaps and mend the system to include private school students in the states that exclude such students from their laws.

The issue of sexual misconduct in a school setting has taken center stage in the media as the new, comprehensive investigation gets underway for St. George School. As the investigation continues and potential victims continue to come forward, St. George School will be under a microscope to see how the situation is handled and how schools in general react to their findings in providing greater protections for students. All we can do is wait to see how the tragedy in Rhode Island plays out, hope that justice is served for all victims who suffered great trauma due to the horrendous acts of school employees, and rally for a change in school policies relating to sexual misconduct and the protections offered to students.

Ajla Glavasevic

Ajla Glavasevic is a first-generation Bosnian full of spunk, sass, and humor. She graduated from SUNY Buffalo with a Bachelor of Science in Finance and received her J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. Ajla is currently a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and when she isn’t lawyering and writing, the former Team USA Women’s Bobsled athlete (2014-2015 National Team) likes to stay active and travel. Contact Ajla at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post St. George’s: Sex Abuse Scandal Rocks a Rhode Island Town appeared first on Law Street.

Fun fact: the well-known horror flick “The Conjuring” is based on supposed events that happened in a real house, located in the small village of Harrisville, Rhode Island. The 2013 movie was a huge success for Warner Bros., but not so much for the two people that actually live in the home. Residents Norma Sutcliffe and Gerry Helfrich are being driven crazy by fans who come to the house to look for evidence of the supernatural. It’s gotten so bad that Sutcliffe and Helfrich are now suing Warner Bros, the film’s director, and others for their troubles.

“The Conjuring” is based on the story of a couple of ghost hunters, Ed and Lorraine Warren. They’re a pretty famous pair in the ghost hunting community–“A Haunting in Connecticut” and “The Amityville Horror” were also based on their investigations. They were brought to the Harrisville, Rhode Island by the family who lived there in the 1970s, the Perrons. The Perrons and their five daughters were supposedly haunted by the ghosts of various spirits, and hired the Warrens to help them rid their house of supernatural occurrences. The farmhouse, built in the 18th century, had quite a history of death and misfortune.

Whether or not this story is true is very hotly debated–the Perron family and Lorraine Warren swear it is,  but there are many skeptics. Regardless, the story had all the important elements of the perfect horror movie–an old New England farm house, a young family, and even a haunted doll named Annabelle. So, it was obviously a huge box office hit; the movie generated almost $60 million in its first weekend alone.

The actual house wasn’t used in the filming, but the movie’s opening credits disclose that the events took place at an old farmhouse in Harrisville. Given the lore about the Perrons that already existed before the movie, it’s not hard to figure out that the house is the one that Sutcliffe and Helfrich live in now. But Sutcliffe claims that she had no idea that Warner Bros was even planning on making the movie until a friend told her about it–and since it’s come out, things have gotten crazy for them. Sutcliffe stated:

The Internet was bombarded by people who were actually going around the property, filming. … We had harassing phone calls in the middle of the night. They’ve had discussions of people destroying the house because ‘it’s so full of evil.’

She said that they’ve posted “No Trespassing” signs and built fences, but nothing has kept crazed fans at bay. Sutcliffe claims they’ve been harassed, stalked, and that she’s had to call the police at every hour to keep people away from her home. Now, they’re suing Warner Bros and others involved in the movie, for monetary damages, although according to some sources, they plan on asking that any money they receive be donated to local law enforcement for their trouble. They also want help with a security system and security plan to keep the crazies away.

It’s hard not to feel some sympathy for Sutcliffe and Helfrich–they’re now being haunted themselves by crazed fans instead of ghosts and possessed dolls. We’ll see if they’re successful in this lawsuit and rid themselves of their very-much human demons.

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 Couple who Lives in “The Conjuring” House Sues Warner Bros. appeared first on Law Street.

If you haven’t noticed, Lincoln Chafee was running for president. You may have also noticed that on Friday morning, he officially dropped out of the race. His announcement marks the end of his four and a half month campaign, despite never polling above 2 percent nationally.

While I do not mean to belittle Lincoln Chafee–a distinguished politician who has been a Mayor, Governor, and Senator for the state of Rhode Island–nearly all of the evidence and discussion about his presidential bid has led to everyone asking why he ran in the first place. During his career, Chafee was a vocal opponent to the Iraq War and was the only Republican in the Senate to vote against the use of force in the Iraq War (Chafee later switched to the Democratic Party in May 2013). But despite his record, his presidential campaign has been arguably the most underwhelming part of the 2016 primary race.

While Chafee’s campaign may have felt like it was over before it started, he officially  fell into obscurity during the Democratic debate. In the debate, Chafee launched a thinly veiled jab at Hillary Clinton, saying that the United States need to restore American credibility with the world and that the next president needs the best ethical standards. His affront was relatively bold–especially considering no one else on the stage was that willing to confront her–but when moderator Anderson Cooper asked if Clinton wanted to respond, she merely said “no.” That was that. No one pushed back; no one was outraged that Hillary Clinton didn’t have to answer a nearly direct challenge from another candidate.

When a longshot candidate announces his campaign to be president, many wonder if he is in the race to talk about the issues and force the other candidates to do so as well rather than actually get elected. But after the first Democratic debate, Lincoln Chafee couldn’t even do that much.

By most accounts, Chafee had a weak debate performance even if you don’t factor in his inability to engage Hillary Clinton. But it didn’t end there; in an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN the next day Blitzer all but asked him to end his campaign right then and there.

Chafee’s campaign officially began back in June, and since then he has largely failed to generate attention. Foreign policy was one of his primary focal points, using the phrase “Prosperity Through Peace” as a major campaign tagline. He presented himself as an alternative to the more hawkish Republican party and Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton. Arguably the highlight of his announcement speech was a call for the United States to switch to the metric system. While that might actually not be the worst idea, having it as a pillar of your presidential platform is questionable. I don’t know about you, but when someone says we need to change our measurement system, I don’t reach for my wallet to donate to their campaign.

Chafee’s polling remained steady since the beginning of his campaign, fluctuating between 0 and 2 percent. Yes–there have been several polls in which none of the respondents said that they would vote for Lincoln Chafee. At one point, Conan O’Brian took it upon himself to simply try and get Chafee up to 1 percent.

Money has also been a significant problem for Chafee. NPR recently took a look at all of Chafee’s major campaign donors–there are 10 of them. In total, he raised about $15,000. In fairness to Chafee, he did raise nearly $4,000 from donors whose names do not need to be disclosed because they gave less than $200 each, but still. For some comparison, Bernie Sanders has raised over $41 million from over 65,000 donors.

From the start of his campaign, it has been hard for anyone to really understand why Chafee was running in the first place. While he focused largely on his anti-war views, he was not unique in that respect. Bernie Sanders also opposed the war in Iraq and generally does not support the use of force abroad unless it is absolutely necessary. Chafee also trumpeted his integrity. He has often said, “I am very proud that over my almost 30 years of public service I have had no scandals.” While integrity is certainly something that people should look for in a candidate, it is not the only thing. Most people want someone they can trust, but who also has good ideas and a strong vision for the future–a combination that Lincoln Chafee never quite seemed to communicate.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Making Sense of Lincoln Chafee’s Bizarre Campaign appeared first on Law Street.

Former Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee formally announced his run for the Democratic presidential bid on Wednesday, June 3. Chafee joins a few other declared Democratic presidential candidates, with Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton garnering the most support thus far at 12.8 percent and 61.2 percent respectively. Given Chafee’s relative obscurity, however, he seems to be a bit of a long shot candidate.

Chafee’s moment of glory mainly comes from his work with Obama. Obama helped Chafee win the governorship in 2010 and then Chafee became one of Obama’s strongest supporters during his reelection campaign in 2012. Chafee seems to be mimicking some of Obama’s actions in the Democratic primary, especially Obama’s tactic of attacking the Iraq War vote to defeat Clinton in the 2008 race. Obama opposed the Iraq war from the beginning and in the 2008 Democratic presidential race, he persistently attacked Clinton for her decisions regarding the Iraq war. This attack point helped Obama defeat Clinton, and Chafee appears to be capitalizing on the same thing. He has launched his campaign with a focus on his dissenting vote in the Senate regarding the Iraq War in 2002. Chafee is using this to separate himself from Clinton, which is not an awful tactic considering that it’s a weak spot for the Democratic frontrunner.

In this aspect, Chafee joins O’Malley in being the only other Democratic presidential candidate to play a little dirty instead of focusing on the issues and policy reforms. Which, considering neither Clinton nor Sanders has resorted to the same kind of tactics, could backfire for Chafee immediately.

According to Chafee’s website, his four main platform points are an aversion to foreign entanglements, building a strong middle class, improving environmental stewardship, and the protection of personal liberties. Chafee’s past is actually most interesting aspect of his presidential bid–he entered politics as a Republican and then became an independent until he joined the Democratic Party in 2013. But Chafee is not at all worried with how his party-switching history will affect his popularity in the primary. In fact, his response to this concern was:

I have not changed. My old liberal Republican stand on the issues does line up with the Democratic Party—women’s reproductive freedoms, support for working families. I have a 30-year record.

Another notable aspect of Chafee’s presidential bid is his insistence on switching the United States to the metric system. His reasoning for doing so is to become “an internationalist country.” He believes that by switching to the metric system, among other moves, the United States will be giving a symbolic message to the rest of the world that it is ready to integrate into the world system instead of taking a unilateral approach to foreign policy.

Chafee’s run is undoubtably a long shot. But the same buzz surrounded Bernie Sanders when he first announced, and he is the only Democratic candidate who has threatened Clinton’s standing, even if only marginally so. Chafee seems focused on his role as the underdog and feels America has a particularly soft spot for that kind of status. But the problem is that both O’Malley and to a lesser extend, Sanders, have been running on a similar platform. So the Democratic presidential bid is turning into a contest between the established Clinton dynasty, a progressive-socialist independent Sanders, little known O’Malley, and now Chafee, the new underdog.

Sarina Neote

Sarina Neote is a member of the American University Class of 2017. Contact Sarina at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lincoln Chafee: The Democratic Primary Welcomes a New Underdog appeared first on Law Street.

Continuing down the northeast corridor this week, the dumbest laws continue to not disappoint.

Connecticut may be home to some of the most intelligent people in the world thanks to the presence of many Ivy League universities. This doesn’t stop it, however, from also being home to many stupid laws. Until recently, buying alcohol in Connecticut was a bit tricky. Although it was recently repealed, there was once a law that you could not buy alcohol after nine at night or on Sundays. And perhaps as a means of preventing road rage from getting out of hand, Connecticut lawmakers made it illegal to discharge a firearm from a highway.

In Rocky Hill you’ll find your selection of games a bit limited at the arcades, as only four amusement devices are permitted inside of them. Yes, some Connecticut cities just love raining on peoples’ parades. In Southington, silly string is banned. Yes, SILLY STRING! A staple of many a childhood, BANNED!

Many Massachusetts laws deemed stupid actually make sense to me. For example, it is illegal to give beer to hospital patients. I mean, I’d hope so! Speaking of alcohol, candy may not contain more than one percent of the stuff. This is also logical, if you ask me. We don’t need a bunch of kids (or adults, for that matter) bumbling around drunk after a mad candy binge. Halloween would be a nightmare otherwise!

Massachusetts doesn’t want to take any chances regarding gun users turning to killers. At shooting ranges in the state, targets may not resemble human beings. The state seems to be anti-violence in general as public boxing matches are illegal.

Considering its tiny size, I was blown away by the length of the list of dumb Rhode Island laws. Professional sports teams have a few hoops through which to jump in Rhode Island if they want to play on Sunday. There, every sport except ice polo and hockey must obtain a special license to play on that day. Also, business owners and sports coaches must be aware of a special law regarding the special day: “Exercising any labor, business, or work, or using any game, sport, play, or recreation, or causing any of the above to be done to or by your children, servants, or apprentices on the first day of the week results in a penalty of $5 for the first offense and $10 for the second.” With fines like that, you wouldn’t want to take any chances.

Seriously, Rhode Island. Chill.

If every Rhode Island driver adhered to the law the roads would be a loud mess, as one is required to make a loud noise prior to passing on the left. At least you won’t encounter any horse owners testing the speed of their steed on the highways. In Rhode Island, “riding a horse over any public highway for the purpose of racing, or testing the speed of the horse is illegal.”

I’ve heard of impersonating police officers, but impersonating an auctioneer? Well, it must have been a problem in Rhode Island at some point as it made it illegal to impersonate a town sealer, auctioneer, corder of wood, or a fence-viewer. And if you find yourself in some sort of quarrel with someone else, be aware that it is illegal to bite off his or her leg.

And be very careful in Scituate: you’ll need to transport beer from the liquor store or other place of purchase to your home in something other than your car because it is illegal to have it in your car even if it is unopened.

Phew, that was exhausting! So many dumb laws, so little time…

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 Dumbest Laws of the United States: Connecticut, Rhode Island, & Mass appeared first on Law Street.

The internet has a remarkable way of showing you the worst that humanity has to offer, most notably so in the form of user generated comments. When you ask someone their opinion on something and replace a pen and paper with a keyboard and computer screen, the results may shock you. People truly get nasty. Former Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling became blatantly aware of this fact after sending this tweet congratulating his 17-year-old daughter on her college acceptance.

Congrats to Gabby Schilling who will pitch for the Salve Regina Seahawks next year!!

— Curt Schilling (@gehrig38) February 25, 2015

Who could have predicted that this one little congratulatory tweet would unleash an internet storm of tweets full of gross profanity, referencing rape and bloody underwear (possibly a reference to when Schilling played a game with an injured ankle, and had a “bloody sock” at the end)? The whole mess now has Schilling rushing to his daughter’s defense and taking legal action.

I’m going to spare our readers by not embedding a ton of the offensive tweets into this post, but most of them went something like this:

@WhatsLIAMdoing @Cubb_E@beth_lee@richiereiss This tweet? Or the one on the left you favorited? pic.twitter.com/Qwh9TmOrMH

— Curt Schilling (@gehrig38) March 2, 2015

Shocked, Schilling took to his “38 pitches” blog to confront his daughter’s cyberbullies. He speaks about being in sports his entire life, knowing “guys will be guys,” but points out that he never spoke with his friends about women in this way. After doing some online digging of his own, Schilling then proceeded to share information about specific bullies in his post writing:

The Sports Guru”? Ya he’s a DJ named Adam Nagel (DJ is a bit strong since he’s on the air for 1 hour a week) on Brookdale Student Radio at Brookdale Community College. How do you think that place feels about this stud representing their school? You don’t think this isn’t going to be a nice compilation that will show up every single time this idiot is googled the rest of his life? What happens when a potential woman he’s after googles and reads this?

The other clown? He’s VP of the Theta Xi fraternity at Montclair State University. I gotta believe if Theta Xi is cool with a VP of one of their chapters acting like this I’d prefer to have no one I know in it.

According to USA Today, Nagel has since been summarily suspended by his college and will be scheduled for a conduct hearing for further disciplinary action. “The other clown” is Sean MacDonald, who has since been fired from his part time ticket sales jobs for the New York Yankees.

Schilling concluded the post in a the kind of frantic rant you’d expect from any father protecting his daughter. He then took to Twitter responding to many cyberbullies with some choice words and tweets about “friends in the special forces.”

According to Schilling, so far nine trolls have faced consequences. As a result, many of the offensive tweets have been deleted, but that hasn’t stopped more from popping up in their place. Schilling appears to be going after the truly persistent.

According to CBS, Schilling says some of the tweets were more than just offensive–they were against the law. He says he’s seeking legal recourse, he’s been speaking with the FBI and local police, and is currently discussing the possibility of filing criminal charges. This man’s personal vendetta to hunt down each one of these cyberbullies is a warning to anyone thinking about posting hateful comments on social media, and more importantly proof that you should never mess with a man and his daughter.

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 Curt Schilling Seeking Legal Action Against Daughter’s Cyberbullies appeared first on Law Street.