Cedric Anderson’s fatal shooting of his estranged wife, Karen Smith, and one of her students in a San Bernardino elementary school on Monday sparked discussions about domestic violence. While assumptions were made about the shooting when it first broke–namely that it could have been a terror attack–it was quickly revealed to be an act of domestic violence. This raises the question: why isn’t domestic violence as heavily covered by the media as terrorism?

Why, exactly, doesn’t violence against women cause the same type of public outrage? There are plenty of theories–including traditional male dominance over women, and the historical viewpoint that a woman is a man’s possession–that could lead to the downplaying of domestic violence. But it’s incredibly dangerous–according to mental health experts, most murder-suicides are committed by men killing their female partner and then themselves. And in 90 percent of murder-suicides, guns are the preferred method.

Domestic violence has in some cases proven to be a warning sign and precursor for a mass shooting. That was the case with Omar Mateen and the nightclub shooting in Orlando last year, Robert Lewis Dear who was the alleged gunman at the Planned Parenthood shooting in 2015, John Houster who killed nine people at a Louisiana movie theater in 2014, and many others. According to an analysis by Everytown for Gun Safety, 54 percent of all mass-shootings involved a current or former partner or family member.

Her name was Karen Smith & she was shot by her estranged husband in front of her students. We need to talk about guns and domestic violence. pic.twitter.com/3uWiibMwBb

— UltraViolet (@UltraViolet) April 11, 2017

And Anderson was not a first-time offender. He had a history of domestic violence against previous girlfriends, stretching back three decades. He also had a history of threatening gun violence, and had been charged with assault, battery, disturbing the peace, and brandishing a firearm in Los Angeles in 2013. But he was still allowed to own a gun.

According to Susan Sorenson, who studies domestic violence and guns at the University of Pennsylvania, there isn’t any research available on whether some men use domestic violence against their partner as a preparation for a mass shooting, but she said it’s certainly an intriguing theory. “Men who are violent toward their female partners often are violent guys in general–that might be the issue,” she said.

According to data from the FBI, at least 6,875 people were fatally shot by their romantic partner from 2006 to 2014. Eighty percent of those victims were women. That means that every 16 hours, an American woman is fatally shot by a partner or a former partner. There is a law called the Lautenberg Amendment that prohibits people convicted of domestic violence from owning a gun–but that only applies if the couple is married, has been married, or if they have a child together. Anderson was in no way prohibited from owning guns, as Smith was the only woman he ever married and she never reported him to the authorities.

“an estimated 50 women a month are shot to death in the US by former or current partners” https://t.co/ZPSXDjoCAu

— Mona Eltahawy (@monaeltahawy) April 12, 2017

This creates what is sometimes called the “boyfriend loophole,” where partners who have never been married to their victims are free to own firearms even after being convicted of domestic violence. It doesn’t stop anyone from illegally obtaining a weapon, or from buying one privately or over the internet. Domestic violence happens every single day, but it seems like it’s often taken for granted as something that “just happens.”

The U.S. has a rate of gun violence that is nowhere close to the rates of other developed countries. According to data from the United Nations, the U.S. has almost six times the gun murder rate of Canada, seven times Sweden’s, and a whopping 16 times Germany’s.

It’s hard to say whether change is forthcoming. But Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, said that advocates for stricter gun control are working to tighten domestic violence gun laws on the state level throughout the country. And since 2013, 22 states have passed bills restricting access to guns for perpetrators of domestic violence.

“This is an issue that red and blue lawmakers can agree on: domestic abusers shouldn’t have guns,” she said. “All countries have domestic violence. The difference is that we arm our abusers.” All available research agrees with this–more gun ownership leads to more gun violence. If a domestic abuser has access to a gun, violence is more than three times more likely to turn deadly. And until lawmakers realize this and significantly tighten gun laws, more shootings will happen and people will keep becoming desensitized.

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 San Bernardino Shooting Puts Domestic Violence in the Spotlight appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Teacher and Student Dead After San Bernardino School Shooting

Yesterday, a teacher and an eight-year-old student at a San Bernardino elementary school died. They were murdered by the teacher’s estranged husband, who shot her before killing himself. Another student was seriously injured. The children are believed to have been caught in the crossfire, as Cedric Anderson’s target was his estranged wife, Karen Elaine Smith. This tragedy happened just a little over a year after a radicalized Muslim couple shot and killed 14 people at San Bernardino’s Inland Regional Center.

Smith’s son described Anderson as “paranoid and possessive.” He managed to enter the school after telling staff he was just going to drop something off for Smith. San Bernardino schools increased security after the 2015 terrorist attack, but it’s hard to believe they could have stopped Anderson. “[It] is not uncommon for a spouse to be able to gain access to a school campus to meet with their other spouse,” said Police Chief Jarrod Burguan.

Police are investigating San Bernardino shooting as domestic violence incident. There’s much more that can be done to keep guns from abusers pic.twitter.com/aT6v0kj7Ds

— CAP Action Guns (@CAPActionGuns) April 10, 2017

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 RantCrush Top 5: April 11, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

The couple that gunned down 14 people in San Bernardino, California last December exchanged private messages on Facebook nearly two years before the attack, discussing jihad and martyrdom. In the hours following the massacre, Tashfeen Malik–one of the killers–pledged allegiance to the leader of the Islamic State on her Facebook feed. The couple’s social media use prior to and after the attack reiterated ISIS’s savvy online; it also spurred action by the Department of Homeland Security, which announced a few months later a vague commitment to enhance its screening of social media accounts of immigrants who apply for certain immigration benefits, as well as Syrian refugees seeking asylum in the U.S.

Now, there is a push to increase surveillance of the social media accounts of all foreign travelers coming into the U.S. A Customs and Border Protection proposal filed in the Federal Register on June 23 recommends an additional section to forms filled out by tourists and immigrants at customs: “Please enter information associated with your online presence—provider/platform—social media identifier.” The proposed change to the form would be voluntary, and would not ask for passwords. For some, the voluntary aspect of the new proposal renders it useless.

“What terrorist is going to give our government permission to see their radical jihadist rants on social media?” Representative Vern Buchanan (R-FL) said in a statement. Buchanan is the author of legislation that is currently in Congress, the “Social Media Screening for Terrorists Act,” which includes similar proposals to CBP’s, although his bill would make filling out social media account information required. He said the new revision “lacks teeth.” 

Social media has proved an effective tool for proselytizing ISIS’s extremist ideology. But platforms like Twitter and Facebook struggle with policing accounts without breaching First Amendment rights. There is a general consensus that it is not the federal government’s role to impose restrictions on social media. But since the San Bernardino attacks and subsequent terrorist attacks around the globe, the U.S. government has increased its capacity to combat online radicalization. In its proposed revisions to the current customs form, CBP commented: “Collecting social media data will enhance the existing investigative process and provide DHS greater clarity and visibility to possible nefarious activity.”

However the U.S. government ends up beefing up its ability to monitor the social media accounts of people entering the country, ISIS continues to recruit people online. It is definitely an issue to keep an eye on in the coming months.

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 U.S. Customs Form Could Soon Include Section for Social Media Information appeared first on Law Street.

The fight between the FBI and Apple over a locked iPhone definitely isn’t going to be resolved anytime soon. On Tuesday, Apple General Council Bruce Sewell and  FBI Director James Comey both went before the House Judiciary Committee to answer questions relating to the investigation into one of the San Bernardino shooters’ phones.

If you need a refresher from my last post, the case pretty much boils down to these three facts:

• The shooter’s iPhone is encrypted and the FBI wants help to unlock it, in order to continue its investigation.
• FBI officials have asked Apple to create software that would allow them to have unlimited attempts to guess the phone’s password.
• Apple, however, refuses to do any of these things, arguing that they will potentially jeopardize the security of all iPhone users if the software is used by hackers.

During Tuesday’s hearing Director Comey attempted to defend his agency’s motives to lawmakers. Comey explained that the FBI’s intent is to gain as much information as possible regarding the San Bernardino attack, and not to expand its surveillance power. He said,

We are asking to ensure that we can continue to obtain electronic information and evidence pursuant to the legal authority that Congress has provided us to keep America safe.

But as it turns out, the only reason the FBI even needs Apple’s help is because “there was a mistake made” in the 24 hours after the attack. FBI officials believed they could reset the phone’s iCloud password in order to access information, but instead it ended up completely locking them out. According to the New York Times, the FBI’s ineptitude drew criticism from both Democrats and Republicans at the hearing.

Sewell also testified in Apple’s defense, reiterating prior assertions that creating this type of technology for the FBI would create a backdoor that could be used on other iPhones and compromise customers’ privacy. Sewell stated,

We don’t put up billboards that market our security. We do this because we think protecting security and privacy of hundreds of millions of iPhones is the right thing to do.

Recently Apple had a major win in the case after a New York judge ruled in another case that the government can’t force the company to break an iPhone’s passcode security. The precedent-setting case involved a similar situation where the FBI wanted Apple to create software to access a meth dealer’s iPhone data.

The presiding judge, Federal Magistrate Judge James Orenstein determined that,

Ultimately, the question to be answered in this matter, and in others like it across the country, is not whether the government should be able to force Apple to help it unlock a specific device; it is instead whether the All Writs Act resolves that issue and many others like it yet to come. I conclude that it does not.

The All Writs Act (AWA) is a 227-year-old federal statute that essentially authorizes federal courts to compel people to do things within the scope of the law. Orenstein found the FBI’s use of the statute to be a stretch and said that “he found no limit on how far the government would go to require a person or company to violate the most deeply-rooted values.”

This decision will undoubtedly help Apple with its continued resistance against the FBI, but as of yet there is no definitive outcome in sight.

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 Apple, FBI Testify Before Congress Over Locked IPhone Dispute appeared first on Law Street.

An iPhone used by one of the two attackers who killed 14 people in the San Bernardino shooting has become the subject of an intense battle over cell phone privacy after Apple publicly refused to help the FBI hack into it.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym ordered Apple Tuesday to provide “reasonable technical assistance” to the FBI, which has been struggling to unlock Syed Rizwan Farook’s password-protected phone. More specifically, the FBI wants Apple to develop a custom version of the iPhone software that could be loaded onto Farook’s phone in order to unlock the device. Apple, however, has opted to challenge the court order in a stand to protect encryption rights and customers.

In an open letter to Apple customers, CEO Tim Cook explained Apple’s decision, stating:

Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.

Apple claims the software would essentially create a “back door” or “key” in the system that could potentially be used later by sophisticated hackers and cyber-criminals, which would effectively put tens of millions of Americans at risk. Cook continued writing,

We can find no precedent for an American company being forced to expose its customers to a greater risk of attack. For years, cryptologists and national security experts have been warning against weakening encryption. Doing so would hurt only the well-meaning and law-abiding citizens who rely on companies like Apple to protect their data. Criminals and bad actors will still encrypt, using tools that are readily available to them.

But without Apple’s help, there is possibly some important information that the FBI could be missing out on that remains buried inside the encrypted iPhone.

According to CBS, investigators are still trying to uncover what happened during the 18-minute gap in the timeline between the shooting at the Inland Regional Center and the police shootout that ended both shooters’ lives. The FBI is also most likely still looking for information that could connect the shooters to a possible terror network, or reveal evidence of possible co-conspirators in the attack. While the shooting may have been inspired by ISIS, the terrorist group has never taken responsibility for the attack.

Therein lies the catch-22 that Apple faces. If the issue only concerned Farook’s phone, it’s highly doubtful Apple would even be making a stand.

When asked by the New York Times about Apple’s resistance, the Justice Department pointed to a statement by Eileen M. Decker, the United States attorney for the Central District of California that read,

We have made a solemn commitment to the victims and their families that we will leave no stone unturned as we gather as much information and evidence as possible. These victims and families deserve nothing less.

As of yet, it’s unclear what kind of legal repercussions Apple could face in the standoff, but the company has been extremely transparent with its intentions to fight the order and protect encrypted information on its devices.

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 Why is Apple Refusing to Unlock the San Bernardino Shooter’s IPhone? appeared first on Law Street.

It may be the happiest place on earth, but it’s also one that needs serious security. Officials at Disney World just announced that it’s upping both visible and behind-the-scenes security measures, and other theme parks nationwide are taking similar actions.

One of the most visible new measures added to the Disney World parks located in Orlando, Florida will be metal detectors. Guests won’t be allowed to bring toy guns, including squirt guns, inside, and Disney is also stopping the sale of such products. For example, the Pirates of the Caribbean theme shop used to sell plastic guns–those will be removed from the shelves. The parks will also no longer allow anyone over the age of 14 to walk around in costumes or masks (besides, of course, employees.) Disney World has also beefed up security overall–placing additional law enforcement officials within the parks, and using dogs on patrol. Disneyland, located in California, is also upping its security. 

Disney isn’t alone in instituting new security measures. SeaWorld has also begun using metal detectors to screen entering guests, and Universal Studios is testing wand detectors. Officials at Disney and Universal have said that the new security features weren’t sparked by the actions of the San Bernardino shooters, or any other threat of terror. In fact, Universal spokesman Tom Schroder told the Orland Sentinal:

We want our guests to feel safe when they come here. We’ve long used metal detection for special events, such as Halloween Horror Nights. This test is a natural progression for us as we study best practices for security in today’s world.

Disney and Sea World spokespeople echoed similar sentiments.

However, these announcements do come right after a statement from the Department of Homeland Security that instructed Americans to expect more security and police presence at big gathering locations, stating it was: “especially concerned that terrorist-inspired individuals and homegrown violent extremists may be encouraged or inspired to target public events or places.”

It makes sense that Disney World, SeaWorld, and Universal are instituting more robust security features, and it doesn’t look like any of these new features will really affect guests’ experiences. But if anything they’re a sad reminder of the violence–particularly gun violence–that has become increasingly commonplace in the United States.

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 Disney World Announces an Increase in Security Features appeared first on Law Street.

Last night, Republicans (and Democratic masochists) cozied up to watch the fifth GOP debate of 2015. Hosted by CNN in Las Vegas, it featured nine presidential hopefuls sparring over mostly national security and foreign affairs questions. Some of the back-and-forths got nasty, including Trump vs. Bush, Cruz vs. Rubio, and watching the entire debate vs. my sanity.

But in a debate that focused heavily on the threat of terror, and the horrific actions of the San Bernardino shooters,  we heard a lot about political correctness last night. Most notably, according to serious contender Ted Cruz that “political correctness is killing people.” Slamming political correctness has become a new hobby for the Republican party, centered on the concept that Democrats are too scared of offending anyone that we have become weak on security.

Well here’s some political incorrectness for you guys: that line of thought is a fucking excuse, a waste of breath, and a complete misconception of the whole idea of political correctness.

The big flash point appears to be that despite the fact that one of the San Bernardino shooters, Tashfeen Malik, posted messages on social media that advocated for jihad and showed she was radicalized, the Obama administration didn’t catch it. Nevermind the fact that she used a pseudonym with heavy security settings, “that did not allow people outside a small group of friends to see them.” The Obama administration was too busy being politically correct to use its crystal ball to divine that those posts were hers when she applied for a visa.

So what, exactly, were all the Republican candidates that railed against “political correctness” suggesting? That pseudonyms not be able to be used on Facebook or any other social media site? Well that’s a Facebook problem, not a political problem. Or that we should monitor every single person’s social media? That’s awfully Big Brother-ish, and if there are ramifications for someone posting something, well, that could impede on our Freedom of Speech. Or is it just people who don’t look, sound, or pray like the Republican candidates that should be monitored–there was after all, certainly no way we could have stopped Elliot Rodgers, who sent a manifesto outlining his plans before killing seven people and had spent time on multiple forums extolling his hatred for women. But of course, Rodgers, as a non-Muslim young man, was a victim of mental illness, nothing more. There’s no way we could have stopped him.

Or what about Dylann Roof, who shot nine people at a church in Charleston, South Carolina? It’s widely suspected Roof spent time on a white supremacist site called Daily Stormer. The manifesto he wrote uses language pulled almost directly from that site. Should he have been monitored? Or again, were his actions utterly unpredictable, beget out of mental illness and not out of any sort of radicalization that made him believe he needed to slaughter Black Americans?

Can we also talk about the logistical issues of what the Republican candidates were seemingly proposing? The average American age 18-24 sends or receive over 100 texts per day. Overall, time spent on Facebook worldwide accounts for 20 percent of all time online. In the U.S., 74 percent of all adults use at least some form of social media—we’re talking 240 million people. Even if we only identify 1 percent of them as even a possible threat–still 2.4 million people–how do we identify those people in the first place? Yes, we have algorithms, but computers can’t interpret tone or intent. So unless we want the NSA to spend its time sorting through Facebook posts, we have some serious logistical issues here–the NSA has had a hard time processing the data it already has. The Republicans on that stage last night wanted you to believe that we have Muslim terrorists writing “I’m going to commit an act of terror” on their Facebook pages and that the Obama administration is ignoring it, but that’s simply not true.

The internet is an unprecedented thing that we have now–the concept that we have access to this kind of massive personal information on people and their thoughts. We do need to figure out how to optimize policies in a way that will best help with national security. But the idea that all that’s stopping us from accessing all the answers about terrorism is “political correctness” doesn’t recognize the huge logistical undertaking proposed, the potential Freedom of Speech issues, the anonymity the internet provides, or the fact that the government maybe shouldn’t have access to every corner of it. This debate isn’t black and white–it’s significantly more nuanced than that. It’s not just about flipping a “political correctness” switch and suddenly being able to see everyone’s posts (particularly if they’re Muslim) and pinpoint terrorist attacks. And the fact that so many of the Republican candidates last night appeared to think that was the case indicates that they either don’t understand the internet, or are trying to score cheap political points. Given last night’s totally off-base contentions, I’d be surprised by neither.

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 Let’s All Shut the F**** Up About Political Correctness in a National Security Debate appeared first on Law Street.

MSNBC and CNN reporters, among others, just entered the apartment of Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, the alleged San Bernardino shooters, and rifled through their belongings on live TV. Not only is this a gross violation of ethics, it’s also a big problem for the police and FBI.

It’s unclear exactly what happened. According to the news networks, the landlord of the building where Farook and Malik lived allowed them in. According to the landlord, they all rushed past him without permission. The news crews then proceeded to look through the shooters’ personal possessions, showing things like friends’ photos and identifying documents to the cameras.

Screenshots from MSNBC. I added the redout pic.twitter.com/Ttu3zJ0Fjj

— Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) December 4, 2015

MSNBC just doxed Rafia Farook, mother of a terrorist, on live television. I’ve blurred the important bits. pic.twitter.com/VqPwT60yVY

— David Boles (@DavidBoles) December 4, 2015

There are so, so many issues with what just happened that I don’t even know where to begin. For one, these news crews potentially just put the family, friends, and acquaintances of Farook and Malik in serious danger. By releasing things like pictures of drivers’ licenses and other personal information, they could be subject to violence. While I have no sympathy for the shooters, there’s no reason to endanger their families and friends, who may have absolutely no connection to the attacks.

Additionally, this is a big problem for law enforcement–the fact that they didn’t appear to have control over the crime scene is incredibly worrisome. The FBI appears to have had jurisdiction over the apartment at the time that the journalists entered. As CNN’s own panelists, legal analyst Paul Callan, and law enforcement analyst Jonathan Gilliam commented, the fact that the journalists were either allowed in, or not stopped by some form of law enforcement is a huge problem from a legal issue. Even if the two alleged shooters are dead, the scene still needed to be preserved in case they had accomplices, but it’s now been contaminated. Gilliam went so far as to call the incident: “the biggest visible screw-up in investigative history that I think has ever occurred.”

Apparently there were also other media outlets in the area, including FOX News, and at least one reporter from The Sunday Times, but it’s unclear who exactly was inside at any given time. Additionally, there were civilians mulling around–at one point it was reported that someone brought a child into the apartment, and another woman brought a dog.

Twitter users also broadcasted their outrage with CNN and MSNBC’s actions, as well as the lapse in security by law enforcement:

So FBI now investigating as terrorism. They’ll undoubtedly find some CNN and MSNBC fingerprints on the walls. Go get them, guys. — Sarah Kendzior (@sarahkendzior) December 4, 2015

Bang up job reporting from a crime scene by CNN & MSNBC. pic.twitter.com/kmwyMKIbCK

— Gord Macey (@GordMacey) December 4, 2015

Every reporter for @MSNBC, @CNN and other organizations that went in that apartment should be out of work before the day ends.

— Dan Jurgens (@thedanjurgens) December 4, 2015

Overall, it was a pretty shocking show of incompetence, from multiple different sources. Details on how this was allowed to happen was still unclear, but we should all expect some heads to roll.

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 Too Far: CNN and MSNBC Crews Rifle Through San Bernardino Shooters’ Apartment appeared first on Law Street.

When Snapchat first burst onto the social media scene in late 2011, it was widely viewed as a limited and silly app with few practical uses. While news outlets pushed splashy headlines about it being a “sexting app,” most thought that sending temporary pictures to friends was a fad that would run its course. But Snapchat has grown by leaps and bounds, and has become so much more than just a portal for nude photos and silly videos. And yesterday, during its coverage of the San Bernardino shooting, it became a breaking news platform.

Details are still being unraveled about the tragic events in San Bernardino, California yesterday that led 14 dead and many injured. But as with almost every mass shooting or highly publicized tragedy since the dawn of the internet age, viewers from across the country and world checked news sites and social media platforms for the latest explanation on what was happening. Snapchat joined that fray by creating a “California Shooting” live story that allowed users to upload the photos and videos they had to the app. The Snapchat team then selected which ones to feature in order to create a full picture for viewers, in addition to writing news commentary that appeared over the pictures and informed viewers even further.

Interesting to watch how @Snapchat has become a gatekeeper of the news. #SanBernardino pic.twitter.com/Akctc8fwnr

— Josh Solomon (@therealjsolo) December 3, 2015

Snapchat’s story of #SanBernardino pulls you in close and suggests the potential of stitched real-time documentary. pic.twitter.com/i3HbeSH4Kh

— Hamza Shaban (@hshaban) December 3, 2015

People are tweeting about @Snapchat‘s special #sanbernardino news roundup for good reason. Very compelling. pic.twitter.com/K8oPM7xoB3. — Danny Sullivan (@dannysullivan) December 3, 2015

This isn’t the first time that Snapchat has featured live coverage of an event. It covered the Pope’s highly publicized visit to the United States this fall, as well as the GOP debates. But this is the first time that Snapchat has really extended its coverage to breaking news, especially with such a somber and serious subject.

While many have applauded Snapchat for its breakthrough and revolutionary approach to covering real time news, others have expressed concern. After all, despite what Snapchat is evolving into, many still use it for purely entertainment purposes. Advertising coverage of a mass shooting may be disturbing to some browsing the app and unaware of the situation. Others have posited that it’s disrespectful to the victims.

While those are all incredibly valid points, real time coverage of breaking news stories isn’t going to end any time soon. Whether or not Snapchat is the appropriate vehicle for that coverage is certainly a fair discussion, but Snapchat’s drive to continue monetizing its app, and Americans’ vociferous appetite for breaking news probably mean that this new feature is here to stay.    

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 Snapchat Covers San Bernardino Shooting, Becomes Serious News App appeared first on Law Street.