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:

Outrage After Flint Residents Receive Foreclosure Warnings

In Flint, Michigan, thousands of residents have received letters warning them that they could lose their houses unless they pay outstanding water bills. But the city has just begun to recover from the water crisis and has only recently started replacing the water lines. The letters were sent out in April, just a few weeks after the state stopped paying the majority of residents’ water bills due to the contamination that was discovered in 2014. Many people in the city still don’t trust that their water taps provide clean water, even though the city says that lead levels are now low enough for the water to be safe to drink.

You didn’t read that wrong: 8000 people in Flint are being threatened with foreclosure of their homes for not paying for lead-poisoned water

— Profit-à-Proletariat (@EmmaCaterine) May 3, 2017

The city says the unpaid water and sewage bills amount to more than $5.8 million. Flint spokeswoman Kristin Moore said the letters are routine and that the households will have until next February to pay them. But now residents worry about being able to pay for water that they don’t feel comfortable drinking and some are scared of losing their homes. “Flint families should not have to pay for water that they still cannot drink,” said Democratic Rep. Daniel Kildee.

Imagine losing your home because you didn’t pay for water you couldn’t drink. https://t.co/ezchbwwkFG

— Arthur Delaney (@ArthurDelaneyHP) May 3, 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: May 5, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

It’s one of those weird days in between Christmas and New Year’s when you don’t really know what you’re supposed to be doing. Work or chill? Whatever your choice is, take a few minutes and enjoy our rants of the day! 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:

Turkey’s President Claims to Have Evidence That the U.S. Backed ISIS

Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan claimed yesterday to have evidence that U.S. coalition forces have helped terrorists in Syria—including ISIS. “They were accusing us of supporting Daesh [Islamic State]. Now they give support to terrorist groups including Daesh, YPG, PYD. It’s very clear. We have confirmed evidence, with pictures, photos and videos,” Erdogan said at a news conference. He also urged Saudi Arabia and Qatar to join Turkey’s meeting with Russia and Iran to talk about peace efforts in Syria.

For years, anyone saying US UK had backed IS terror was branded a ‘conspiracy theorist’. Now, Erdogan says it’s truehttps://t.co/qE9SFBkPoQ

— Charles Shoebridge (@ShoebridgeC) December 27, 2016

American troops have fought alongside Syrian rebels against President Bashar al-Assad’s forces but have tried to avoid indirectly helping radical Islamist groups. No hard proof of Erdogan’s claims has been made public yet and the U.S. State Department denied everything Erdogan said, calling it “ludicrous.” Spokesman Mark Toner said there was no basis for the accusation.

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: December 28, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

To no one’s surprise, “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” broke box office records around the country and around the world over the weekend. As perhaps the most anticipated film of the year, its release has dominated both print and online media. Some websites are treading very carefully, aiming not to spoil any content for readers who have not yet seen the film. It’s an admirable goal–but what’s the legal side of the spoiler debate?

In an interview with Buzzfeed UK, Harrison Ford asked moviegoers not to ruin the film for others, but it is difficult for websites to avoid publishing content on a film that is dominating online discussions. During a week when the question on everyone’s lips is not if you will be seeing “Star Wars,” but when–what else would entertainment bloggers be writing about?

For a film that has already made profits off of its opening weekend, spoilers are not a threat to commercial success. Yet for films with smaller budgets, the exposition of a plot could be a financial death sentence. Why go see the film if its summary is available online? Websites like Wikipedia and IMDB often post plot summaries of films quickly after they are released, and many entertainment websites post articles about films before they are released in theaters that discuss major plot points under the heading “spoiler alert.”

I personally would not want to pay admission for a film I already knew the plot of. In an era where films are freely available for illegal download or are released directly to a streaming service, fewer young people set time and money aside to go to the movie theater. When the plot of a major film is revealed online, paying admission price seems foolish. A film such as “Star Wars,” with plenty of die hard fans who are so loyal to the franchise that they prefer to see it in theaters, has no trouble breaking even, but films with smaller budgets and a less-publicized release may not attract such dedicated viewers. That being said, film studios have not launched legal action against bloggers who reveal the plot of their films in the same way they do against people who illegally film or download their films. Five separate Hollywood studios have filed for damages against Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom, who is currently facing extradition to the United States, but no studio has brought a case against an online platform for “spoilers.”

Spoilers present an interesting copyright issue for web sources. Filming a scene from a movie in the theater and uploading it would be considered piracy (and could be removed from a content sharing website by the host), but can a written description of the scene be treated the same way? What is the line between writing a review and revealing a pivotal plot point? There is no set rule for when a film’s plot is considered part of the public domain, or when a spoiler becomes common knowledge. How can copyright law ever regulate written descriptions of a film if there is no clear limit on how much a writer is allowed to reveal?

Piracy has a flexible definition that is constantly adapting and expanding as the worldwide web incorporates more forms of media, but I doubt it will ever encompass movie reviews. At the end of the day, movie reviewers are tasked with describing a film and it is perfectly within their rights to do so in as much detail as they want. Hordes of Star Wars fans may have cut themselves off from their favorite websites to avoid spoilers this week, but that hasn’t made a significant dent in internet traffic on major entertainment websites. Spoilers are inconvenient and frustrating, but they are ultimately an inescapable part of internet culture, embedded in the Web, and probably won’t face any legal action anytime soon.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Spoiler Wars: What Should Entertainment Websites Publish? appeared first on Law Street.

Last night was a big night for fans of Star Wars, J.J. Abram’s work, and movies with explosions. The newest trailer for the seventh installment in the Star War’s franchise aired during the Monday Night Football game, and garnered a lot of buzz on social media. The biggest story of the night, however, was the appearance of the hashtag #BoycottStarWarsVII that began trending on Twitter. This hashtag was used by users who were upset at the film’s use of minority actors, especially in the leading roles.

Twitter users used this hashtag to attack the movie for inspiring “white genocide,” and accusing it of forcing a multicultural agenda on its “core audience of young white males.” Asking its fans to accept aliens of all shapes and sizes, robots imbued with artificial intelligence, and even a lame comedic character who sparked racist claims is one thing, but minority actors in leading roles is a whole other. Apparently there’s nothing like an intergalactic science fiction film to inspire racist Twitter rants:

#BoycottStarWarsVII because it will be ghetto garbage. pic.twitter.com/SkNiqg8bKX

— Lord Humungus (@DarklyEnlighten) October 19, 2015

#BoycottStarWarsVII Because everyone knows dindus don't have the brainpower to use The Force. pic.twitter.com/Uh91gnCsEe

— Spooky Azzmador (@The_Azzmador2) October 19, 2015

On the other hand, some also used the hashtag to attack these trolls:

George Lucas and his wife laughing at these #boycottstarwarsvii tweets like pic.twitter.com/0fksLcki2N

— DeMarko Gage (@DeMarko_Gage) October 19, 2015

When I went on Twitter and saw that #BoycottStarWarsVII is trending pic.twitter.com/GOEzI8PZes

— Giants 9001-0 (@zoated) October 19, 2015

This hashtag, along with the #CelebrateStarWarsVII response hashtag brings to light just how political Hollywood can become. “Mad Max: Fury Road” received similar criticism from so-called “men’s rights activists” who claimed that the movie was “feminist propaganda” and urged men to boycott the film. It is truly sad that movies with story lines that don’t relegate women and minorities to stereotypical roles can cause so much backlash. Despite the fact that Hollywood is still heavily dominated by white males as leading actors, directors, and producers, apparently some are still opposed to any increased diversity. Fortunately, the anti-diversity outrage over the new Star Wars movie is minuscule when compared to the number of people excited for the film and either happy to see minority actors utilized, or much too concerned with the movie’s content to worry about political and social complications:

Gloriousness of the new #starwarstrailer has left me completely unable to cope. BRB, in coma of sheer glee.

— Claudia Gray (@claudiagray) October 20, 2015

Maurin Mwombela

Maurin Mwombela is a member of the University of Pennsylvania class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer 2015. He now blogs for Law Street, focusing on politics. Contact Maurin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #BoycottStarWarsVII: Racist Trolling at Its Finest appeared first on Law Street.