President Donald Trump has continued to establish a precedent that loyalty to his administration will be rewarded, and anything else will be met with a harsh response on social media. Both of Alaska’s senators were recently on the receiving end of that ire.

Trump decided to publicly and privately express his displeasure with Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski for her “no” vote on repealing the Affordable Care Act. Early Wednesday, Trump took to Twitter to specifically call out Murkowski for her decision.

Senator @lisamurkowski of the Great State of Alaska really let the Republicans, and our country, down yesterday. Too bad!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

But Trump’s team did not leave it at that. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke called Murkowski and fellow Republican Senator Dan Sullivan yesterday to warn them that opposing the bill could lead to repercussions for Alaskans, according to Alaska Dispatch News. Sullivan told the Alaskan publication that the message was “troubling.”

“I’m not going to go into the details, but I fear that the strong economic growth, pro-energy, pro-mining, pro-jobs, and personnel from Alaska who are part of those policies are going to stop,” Sullivan said.

Some of the key regulatory issues that have been priorities for Murkowski and Sullivan include nominations of Alaskans to Department of Interior posts, an effort to build a road out of King Cove through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge, future opportunities to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and expanding drilling in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. All of these could hypothetically be in jeopardy.

However, as is the case with many of the decisions this administration has made, it appears that this may have been a poorly thought out move. First off, Trump has decided to hit back at a senator who is quite popular with Alaskans. In 2010, Murkowski became the first senator in over 50 years to win an election with a write-in campaign over Tea Party candidate Joe Miller. The campaign gave out temporary tattoos to voters so they could remember how to spell her name on the ballot.

Murkowski is the chairwoman of the Interior-Environment Subcommittee, which is tasked with confirming any nominees to the Department of the Interior that Secretary Zinke may put forward. She also helps control the money that goes into the department as a member of the Senate Appropriations committee. It’s been theorized that Murkowski may be hitting back against Zinke. A hearing to confirm a series of nominees to the Interior has already been delayed, according to NBC News Capitol Hill Correspondent Kasie Hunt.

Perhaps the biggest flaw in the Trump Administration’s threat is its inadvertent support for the environment. The road through King Cove is supposed to cut through a wildlife refuge. The plans for oil expansion include drilling in protected lands. So, Zinke could end up continuing the Obama Administration’s tradition of prioritizing environmental protection over exploiting federal lands.

Murkowski might still be paying attention to these threats. Oil is one of the largest contributors to Alaska’s economy so any damage to that would be severely damaging to the jobs of her constituents. But it seems that the senator is confident that she made the right decision with her health care vote. “I base my votes on what I believe is in Alaska’s best interest,” she said Tuesday. “So I know that there are those who wish that I would be more in line with following the party platform, but I don’t think it should come as any surprise that there have been occasions that I have not followed the lead of the party.”

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 Trump’s Threats Against Alaska May Be Misguided 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:

Trump’s Ultimatum: Approve the New Health Bill or We’ll Stick with Obamacare

Donald Trump yesterday posed an ultimatum for House Republicans–approve the new healthcare bill, or he will leave Obamacare in place as it is. The vote on the new American Health Care Act was supposed to take place yesterday but was delayed, as too many Republicans had said they would vote against the bill. In a closed-door meeting last night, Trump said he wants the House to vote on the bill this afternoon whether it has enough votes to pass or not–he’s apparently tired of negotiating. If the bill doesn’t pass, Trump said he would move on to other issues, despite touting an Obamacare repeal as a priority throughout his campaign.

The president and VP Mike Pence held a meeting with the extremely conservative House Freedom Caucus yesterday afternoon to discuss the bill. A photo from the meeting circulated on social media and was heavily slammed. One of the main topics of conversation was whether to get rid of essential health benefits regulations, which require insurance plans to cover pregnancy and maternity services. But…notice anything missing from this photo?

Here’s the picture of the leaders negotiating away birth control, maternity care & abortion. Notice anything? #ProtectOurCare

(h/t @Emmya2) pic.twitter.com/X1dYUSa7nO

— Planned Parenthood (@PPact) March 23, 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: March 24, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Revenge porn–the non-consensual posting of someone’s explicit photos or videos, usually by an ex–is deeply problematic. And as our technology evolves, we need lawyers willing to help out those, often women, who fall victim to this kind of online harassment. Brooklyn attorney Carrie Goldberg specializes in sexual privacy and focuses on fighting revenge porn, and recently made headlines after being featured in a New Yorker profile. She was once the victim of online sexual harassment, and basically had to start her own law firm in order to become the kind of lawyer that was needed. She mainly represents young women who are trying to get photos off the internet, are being extorted, or have endured sexual abuse.

ACTIVIST SPOTLIGHT (USA): Carrie Goldberg is a Brooklyn attorney with a practice specialising in sexual privacy,… https://t.co/jNGmstSmH2

— The Pixel Project (@PixelProject) December 12, 2016

Many of her clients feel shame, even though they didn’t do anything wrong. One of the youngest is an African-American girl who is only 15 years old. When she was 13, she was raped by a classmate who filmed it and spread the video around the school. Instead of punishing the boy, the school sent the girl home and later transferred her to another school. She was in effect punished for being raped and harassed. Most other clients are women in their twenties who have ex-boyfriends or husbands who have spread or threatened to spread photos or videos online.

Goldberg has, sadly, seen a steady uptick in the number of clients seeking her help since the emergence of Donald Trump as a serious political contender. By this summer she had 35 active clients and had to hire a colleague. She said that many people seem to believe that a Trump presidency might mean a “license to be cruel.” And it’s not all revenge porn–for example she represents a family whose kids’ pictures were used in memes about the Pizzagate conspiracy.

Abuse on the internet flourishes easily, as it is hard to punish. In the case where someone just sends verbal threats it’s basically impossible to find the perpetrator. But we’re making progress. According to the New York Daily News, Goldberg has already done a lot:

She estimates she’s removed more than 900 pieces of revenge porn from the internet, protecting 72 victims. She’s also lobbied for legislation across the country and 34 states now have it — though not New York.

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 How One Lawyer is Fighting Revenge Porn and Why that Fight Matters Now appeared first on Law Street.

The gaming industry is massive, raking in $100 billion worldwide. The industry has come a long way since Tetris and Pac-man. Video games are on cellphones–think Candy Crush. Gamers can use a headset to talk to one another half way across the globe while playing out a visually realistic battle scene. The technology is impressive and has lured people in from all different backgrounds and ages. One would think that the diversity of the games would be mirrored in the industry itself; however, critics of the industry frequently lob accusations of misogyny and the perpetuation of rape culture, which is ironic since 48 percent of gamers are women. Is this merely the market responding to the demand of its consumers or is this the industry actively demeaning a large section of its customer base?

Gender Roles Inside the Games

Female Gamers

A female presence has always been in the gaming industry, but it has skyrocketed in the last few years. In 2011, 1.2 million girls and women played on their consoles more than five days a week. Today that number is more than 5 million.

It is time to change the face of the stereotypical gamer. In reality, males between the ages of 10-25 only account for 15 percent of the market. Puzzle-oriented games on cell phones, like Words With Friends, have created a more diverse marketplace. For example, according to the Entertainment Software Association, from 2012-2013, female gamers over the age of 50 increased by 32 percent. With cell phones and social media, games are much more user-friendly. Game developers took notice and started creating games specifically aimed at women. “Kim Kardashian: Hollywood” amassed $51 million since its launch, making it one of the highest grossing apps on iPhones and Androids.

But these types of games cannot take all the credit. Yes, they have helped bring a new audience, but the average female gamer has been playing for more than 13 years, which predates the explosion of such casual mobile games. Many females play more stereotypical games like “Call of Duty” and want to be treated fairly. According to a study conducted by Danielle Keats Citron, author of “Hate Crimes in Cyberspace,” 70 percent of female gamers play as a male character in order to avoid sexual harassment and ridicule. Apparently, playing as a male character ensures equal treatment.

Female Characters

Female characters inside more stereotypical video games like “Assassins Creed” or “World of Warcraft” are sexually objectified and hyper-sexualized. Female protagonists look more like porn stars than badass warriors. Of course, this is only true when female protagonists are even allowed in the games. And female extras are even worse off, some experiencing extreme sexual violence.

The latest installment of “Assassin’s Creed,” for example, offered no female protagonists. Ubisoft technical director James Therien claimed adding a female character would have “doubled the work” for the animation team. Game designer Jonathon Cooper, a lead developer for earlier installments of the game, denied this, estimating it would have only taken days. So what’s the real reason?

When female protagonists are offered, they are hyper-sexualized. Most “women in drawn art, comics, and animation must and show, look and move with flowy, exaggerated gestures, graceful movements, and hip, chest, and ass thrust forward.” These women perpetuate completely unrealistic ideals of women. Skimpy clothing, skirts, bows, and makeup don’t create an advantage in combat.

Then of course there is the damsel-in-distress stereotype. The female character is at a loss until her knight in shining armor type comes to rescue her. For example, there is Princess Peach who “wears a gown, dainty gloves, and a clueless expression, which imply nothing as far as skill and ability, unless you consider her special attack: a dimpled, smiling heart that protects her cart.” Her character is indeed less capable than her male counterparts.

“Grand Theft Auto V” promotes extreme sexual violence. Even more exaggerated by a first-person view option, a gamer can watch as a prostitute services the character. All you need to do is drive or walk up close to a prostitute. It can even boost character health to more than 100 percent. And in the end, you can kill the prostitute and take your money back. Strauss Zelnick, the CEO of GTA’s publisher Take-Two, called this type of scene “beautiful art.”

LGBTQ Characters

Females are not the only demographic portrayed negatively in the video game world. The LGBTQ community is just as much underserved. Although there are exceptions, most LBGTQ video game characters come out as the villain. The “Metal Gear Solid” series depicts the variety of gay and bisexual characters as enemies of the main character. “Fable II“ and “Fable III” represent the bisexual character, Reaver, as fickle and decadent. The protagonist in “Ballad of Gay Tony“ is a murdering “drug-addicted crime lord.” More often than not, LGBTQ characters are absent. But when they are provided, the associations with the characters are almost entirely negative.

 Professional Women in the Industry

As proved, the number of women playing video games is only on the rise. This is cannot be said, however,  for the number of women taking on professional roles in the gaming industry. Only 11 percent of women are game designers and only three percent are programmers. This is even more shocking when compared to the percentages of women in graphic design (60 percent) and tech sectors (25 percent). And according to a 2011 survey by Gamer Developer Magazine, female programmers make $10,000 less a year and female designers make $12,000 less than their male counterparts.

In November 2012, a massive Twitter conversation, among thousands of men and women gamers and developers was sparked by the tweet “Why aren’t there more female game developers?” Answers ranged from safety (females being groped at conventions) to blank stare responses to questions about over-sexualized female characters. The conversation received national coverage and long awaited recognition.

There are notable and exciting exceptions. Kirsten Duvall has been working in the industry for the last 20 years and is currently the Business Development Director of Everyplay Unity Technologies. Tracy Fullerton is the Director and experimental game designer at the University of South Carolina’s Innovation Lab. USC is one of the world’s leading video game schools. And Chelsea Howe is an extremely effective Creative Director at EA Mobile. These women prove that female success in the industry can be done regardless of the rocky road.

Case Study: #GamerGate

Here is a look at a prime example of the hostility women can face in the industry. Gamergate started around two women: Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian. Quinn, a game designer, released a free game/interactive story called Depression Quest. Quinn’s ex-boyfriend publicly claimed in a number of lengthy blogs that Quinn had cheated on him with people in the field to further her career. It boiled down to Quinn being accused of trading coverage for sex and ethics in journalism. The attacks spiraled out of control leading to death threats. Days later, Sarkeesian, a feminist writer and media critic, got thrown into the mix. Sarkeesian previously advocated for less sexualized female characters and greater female inclusion. Sarkeesian’s video series “Tropes vs. Women in Video Games” received a lot of attention. Her unpopular opinion was answered with unspeakable malice.

This was not your run-of-the-mill negative attention. Both women received graphic and disturbing threats and felt it necessary to leave their homes. These threats all came under the viral hashtag #Gamergate. Shortly after, Jenn Frank and Mattie Brice, notable women in the industry who defended Quinn and Sarkeesian, announced their resignations from the industry due to similar threats.

 The Legal End

Unfortunately as far as regulations go, there are few to none. The courts have time and time again defended game developers under free speech and the First Amendment.

In the 2005 case Entertainment Software Ass’n v. Blagojevich, the federal court found Illinois’ video game statute unconstitutional. It ruled against the previously implemented law banning the distribution to minors of video games with certain violent content. The court did, however, mandate labels restricting such video games to adults and ensure retailors displayed signs explaining video game rating systems. The 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. A year later the same verdict was rendered in Michigan and Louisiana in Entertainment Software Ass’n v. Granholm and Entertainment Software Ass’n v. Foti. Many states endured this battle until the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in California in 2011. In a 7-2 opinion, the court stated “speech about violence is not obscene” and that they are “as much entitled to the protection of free speech as the best of literature.”

As of now, the only legislation in effect is the “Video Games Rating Enforcement Act” that mandates specific labels on video games displaying the ratings based on violent content. One bill introduced, but untimely denied, was the “Children Protection from Video Game Violence and Sexual Content Act.” The act advocated for stricter regulations regarding viewership and video game content. The bill died in the House.

Conclusion

Females are serious heavyweights in the gaming community more than ever before. They love to play as much as males. This includes games of all intensities from Zelda to Trivia Crack. The industry is just starting to take this demographic seriously. But the hostility and open sexism toward women is real and can’t go unchecked, even if it isn’t coming from the majority of gamers. Industry leaders need to make the inclusion of women a priority, and they can start by hiring more of the many intelligent, competent women in the industry.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Congress: Video Game Legislation

Additional

Boston Globe: Women Remain Outsiders in Video Game Industry

Washington Post: More Women Play Video Games Than Boys, and Other Surprising Facts Lost in the Mess of Gamergate

Daily Dot: How Sexist Video Game Animators Keep Failing Women

Entertainment Consumers Association: Video Games and Government Regulations

Fortune: 10 Powerful Women in Video Games

Hastac: Damsels in Distress: Female Representation in Video Games

HuffPost Tech: Sadistic and Decadent: Queering Video Games

Mirror: Grand Theft Auto V: Shocking Video of Prostitute Sex With Gamer in Controversial First-Person Viewpoint

Washington Post: The Only Guide to Gamergate You Will Ever Need to Read

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Gaming Industry: Misogynistic and Living in the Past appeared first on Law Street.

Should all online threats lead to time in prison? According to the Supreme Court, simply reporting a threat posted by someone on the internet is no longer enough to put them in jail, as the Supreme Court just overturned the 2011 conviction of Anthony Elonis. A Pennsylvania native, Elonis was sentenced to jail after posting multiple threats toward his wife, co-workers, and elementary schools in the form of lyrics on Facebook. He claimed to use these posts as therapeutic methods to cope with his depression. However, due to their violent nature, he was convicted for violating a federal threat statute. Elonis appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court, arguing that the government should have been required to prove he truly had an intent to act on these threats before sentencing him to a 44 month term in jail. That argument convinced the Supreme Court–but what does it mean for online communication moving forward?

With this ruling, the Supreme Court says courts must consider the defendant’s state of mind and whether he intended to actually do wrong. This simply means that there must be some proof that the defendant intended to follow through on what he was posting. The court gave a 7-2 opinion but did not set a clear standard for what constitutes this intent to act out these threats. There are questions of whether this will potentially create uncertainties during future trials. In fact, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. believe that this opinion is more confusing than enlightening. Thomas wrote, “This failure to decide throws everyone from appellate judges to everyday Facebook users into a state of uncertainty.”

This is a very tricky case with two sides to it. Something that is posted online may very well be taken out of context, but there is also a good chance that someone who has intent to cause harm to others will not be seen as guilty in a courtroom due to the lack of proof. Michele M. Garcia, director of the Stalker Resource Center, stated,

This decision fails to recognize that victims of stalking experience fear regardless of the offender’s intent. If what constitutes a threat is not clearly defined, our concern is that this ruling provides enormous space for stalkers and abusers to act.

Mai Fernandez, executive director of the National Center for Victims of Crime, described the internet as “the crime scene of the 21st century. Kim Gandy, president of the National Network to End Domestic Violence, stated,

Threats play a central role in domestic abuse and is a core tactic that many abusers employ, regardless of whether the abuser intended to threaten or only intended to vent or to make a joke.

I can’t help but wonder if this decision will help people who do plan to harm others avoid prison?  There is a big concern that this will let internet abusers get around the law by writing hateful posts that “technically” are not threats but are still frightening to others. This decision may make it much more difficult to prosecute those whose posts are a precursor to violence that is going to take place. Only time will tell if this decision by the Supreme Court was beneficial or harmful for those dealing with internet threats.

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Anthony Elonis’s Conviction Overturned: Are Online Threats Now Fair Game? appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been a good week for tech sites looking to prevent harassment. Earlier this week, Reddit banned revenge porn. Essentially, what that means is that it’s now prohibited to upload a naked or otherwise compromising photo to the site without the subject’s consent. That obviously won’t stop all instances of abuse and revenge porn, but it’s certainly a step in the right direction. But it wasn’t just Reddit that took such steps–Twitter also has announced its plan to combat abuse on the site.

Twitter has long been plagued by “trolls.” For the uninitiated to the Twittersphere, we’re not talking about the kind of trolls that live in dungeons or under bridges. A Twitter troll is someone who constantly and incessantly posts inflammatory or abusive posts with the intent to rile or incite a reaction. It’s usually, though not always a form of internet harassment.

Twitter has consistently been the home to many trolls–and the recent #GamerGate discussion brought many out to play. #GamerGate is a virulent movement that attacks women, particularly a few vocal feminist critics of the misogyny inherent in the gaming industry and certain games. The #GamerGate trolls have consistently and repetitively attacked women, tweeting horrible threats of abuse, rape, and murder. The women attacked by #GamerGate aren’t alone–many people, men and women alike, have reported being harassed.

Twitter wants to help put a stop to that, and the company has realized that it’s done a pretty bad job of combating abuse in the past. CEO Dick Costolo wrote in a memo:

I’m frankly ashamed of how poorly we’ve dealt with this issue during my tenure as CEO. It’s absurd. There’s no excuse for it. I take full responsibility for not being more aggressive on this front. It’s nobody else’s fault but mine, and it’s embarrassing.

It’s no secret and the rest of the world talks about it every day. We lose core user after core user by not addressing simple trolling issues that they face every day.

He also wrote:

So now we’re going to fix it, and I’m going to take full responsibility for making sure that the people working night and day on this have the resources they need to address the issue, that there are clear lines of responsibility and accountability, and that we don’t equivocate in our decisions and choices.

It’s in light of these revelations that Twitter is introducing more tools to combat these trolls. For example, it’s started tracking the phone numbers of those who are reported as abusers. How will this help combat harassment? Well, often when users are banned, they are able to easily make new accounts by creating new email addresses. It’s much harder to obtain a new phone number than a new email address. In addition, Twitter is streamlining its process for reporting harm. The company also announced some other “enforcement actions” that will be rolled out in the weeks to come.

The fact that Twitter is trying to take more actions to combat abuse is a good thing, especially in light of the news from Reddit also coming in this week. That being said, it’s not going to solve all problems. Twitter has promised to be more vigilant–let’s hope it actually owns up to the promise.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Twitter Sets New Goals to Combat Trolls appeared first on Law Street.

Violence between Israel and Palestine has surged over the last month following a chain of antagonistic murders in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. On June 12, three Israeli students— Eyal Yifrah, Gilad Shaar, and Naftali Frenkel— were killed. Their bound and partially burned bodies were found in a field northwest of Hebron two weeks later. In retaliation, a 16-year-old Palestinian boy, Muhammed Abu Khdeir, was abducted, bound, and burned alive one day after the burial of the three Israeli students. Khdeir’s cousin, 15-year-old Tariq Abu Khdeir, a Palestinian-American vacationing in East Jerusalem was arrested by Israeli police and beaten while in custody; videos of the boy’s bloody face circulating in social media have only magnified the emotional force behind the escalating tensions between the two countries, engendering missile exchanges between Israel and the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. On Monday July 7, Israel authorized the mobilization of 40,000 reserve soldiers in preparation for an invasion of Gaza, which according to Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon “will not end within a few days.”

Amid the gruesome murders and savage beatings should it be surprising that graffiti has played a critical role in the escalating violence between Israel and Palestine? Since 2008, Price Tag attacks have been a growing phenomena in Israel, though primarily in the West Bank and East Jerusalem; they originated from the “Hilltop Youth” of the West Bank, illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian land — 100 small outposts scattered on strategic hilltops. “A ‘price tag’ means that when the government of Israel decides to evict a settlement, an outpost, even the smallest wooden shack in the land of Israel — it has a price,” according to Moriah Goldberg, a 20-year-old Price Tagger. “Maybe it will make them think twice before they do it again.”

Attacks involve destruction of property perpetrated by Israeli extremists against Arabs —desecrating cemeteries, burning Korans, chopping down olive trees — as well as anti-Arab and anti-Christian defamatory graffiti slogans including the phrase “Price Tag.” “Price tag, King David is for the Jews, Jesus is garbage;” “Jesus is a son of bitch,” spray painted on the entrance of a church; “A good Arab is a dead Arab, Price Tag,” spray painted on a mosque; “Death to Arabs;”  “Enough Assimilation,” “Arab Labor = assimilation;” “Non-Jews in the area = enemies.”

Recently, however, Price Tag attacks have increased in frequency and grown more violent. Attacks have surged from a handful in 2008 to 23 already in 2014; along with slashing tires, Price Tag attackers have firebombed empty vehicles, leaving their signature graffiti marks in the wake of their destruction. In response to the arrest of Israeli suspects for the murder of Abu Khdeir, Price Taggers destroyed a light-rail station in East Jerusalem, leaving Hebrew graffiti reading”Death to Israel” across the burned-out edifice. Price Tag is a “shadowy network of clandestine cells,” according to a recent profile of the guerrilla graffiti group in Foreign Policy, posing a “danger to Israeli security. Future acts of vandalism against Palestinians could escalate tension beyond their current, already dangers levels.”

In 2012, the U.S. State Department began listing Price Tag attacks as acts of terrorism in the Global Terror Report, though Israel falls short of this judgement; on July 1, Israeli Defense Minister Ya’alon defined the attacks a “illegal organizing,” stipulating more severe sentences for the Jewish perpetrators. “[T]errorism is a suicide bomber in a crowded mall or someone who shoots people,” said Dani Dayan, the former director of the Yesha Council, an umbrella organization of municipal councils of Jewish settlements. Price Tag attacks should be treated as “extreme vandalism” or even “hate crime…There’s no comparison between this and real Palestinian terrorism[.]”

Whether or not Israel defines Price Tag as ‘terroristic,’ victims still consider the attacks state-condoned violence against non-Jews due to Israel’s apparent failure to prosecute. Historically, more than 90 percent of investigations into settler violence fail to lead to an indictment. According to Slate, while Israel has condemned the recent rise in Price Tag attacks, the response by authorities has been “charitably described as sluggish.” Between 2005 and 2013, 992 investigations of complaints of Israeli violence against Palestinians were conducted, yet only 7.8 percent led to indictments.

There have been quite a few arrests of Price Tag attackers, in fact; the most recent was July 1, when a 22-year-old Israeli was detained in connection with a Price Tag attack in which assailants torched a christian monastery, spray painting “Jesus is a monkey.” “It is unbelievable to us that Israel can catch enemies, very sophisticated enemies, overseas, but they can’t catch a bunch of punks who live here,” said Jawdat Ibrahim, the owner of a local restaurant. “These attacks happen in an atmosphere, maybe an atmosphere that says, ‘Hey, it’s okay, you’re never gonna get caught.’ ” In a poll released last week by Israel’s Channel 10 News, almost 60 percent of those surveyed agreed that the government “didn’t really want to catch” Price Tag attackers, indicating that Israel condones this violence, or at least allows it to happen.

“There’s no doubt that the Price Tag phenomenon is very influenced by political processes,” said Hebrew University political sociology lecturer Eitan Alum. “They’re violent acts with logical and political goals.” Yet Price Tag is is also an expression of hate, inciting violence among and between Palestinian and Israeli communities.

“‘Price Tag’ and ‘Hilltop Youth’ are sweet, sugary nicknames, and the time has come to call this monster by its name,” famed Israeli author Amos Oz publicly declared on May 14th, 2014, his 75th birthday. “Hebrew neo-Nazis. The only difference between European neo-Nazi groups and Price Tag in Israel,” Oz continued, “lies in the fact that our neo-Nazi groups enjoy the tailwind of quite a few lawmakers who are nationalists, and possibly even racists, and also a number of rabbis who provide them with a basis that, in my opinion, is pseudo-religious.”

Oz’s sobering, if however startling, remarks point to pressing issues regarding the difference between Price Tag and other instances of political graffiti, globally. While graffiti artists like Ganzeer in Egypt, and Captain Borderline in Brazil have used their graffiti to critique oppressive government apparatuses, Price Tag specifically targets elements of the Israeli people based on race, ethnicity, and religion; the group’s intent is malicious, a vindictive visual assault on non-Jews who are otherwise victims of an apartheid Israel, or are continually subject to military violence, as is the case in Gaza.

It is important to differentiate these two strains of political graffiti: while graffiti can promote equality and liberty, it can also counter these values. Once a haven for the oppressed, founded on socialist values, Israel has become an oppressor. Price Tag is a plague of hate, radicalized by twisted Zionism, and ruthless settler politics. “Faithless Jews who don’t fear God can call me a terrorist if they want,” said Price Tagger Moriah Goldberg. “I don’t care what they say about me. I only care what God thinks. I act for him and him alone.”

—

Ryan D. Purcell (@RyanDPurcell) holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York.

Featured image courtesy of [Adrian Fine via Flickr]

Ryan Purcell

Ryan D. Purcell holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York. Contact Ryan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Political Graffiti as a Catalyst for Escalating Israeli-Palestinian Violence appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court is finally ruling on free speech relating to social media platforms. Now, before we jump the gun and say putting limitations on free speech is a violation of the First Amendment, let me explain. This conversation was sparked by a recent case — United States of America v. Anthony Douglas Elonis. I originally thought the outcome of this case was absurd — the defendant is serving more than three years in prison for a few eccentric Facebook posts. Really? Then I dug deeper and what I found was quite disturbing.

After losing his wife, his kids, and his job, Anthony Elonis was depressed and angry. He turned to Facebook to rant. And the “raps” he posted threatened his former place of work, his wife, innocent children, and an FBI agent. Below are some excerpts from his “rap lyrics”:

I also found out that it’s incredibly illegal,
extremely illegal, to go on Facebook and say
something like the best place to fire a mortar
launcher at her house would be from the
cornfield behind it because of easy access to a
getaway road and you’d have a clear line of
sight through the sun room.
Insanely illegal.
Ridiculously, wrecklessly, insanely illegal.
Yet even more illegal to show an illustrated
diagram.
===[ __ ] =====house
: : : : : : : ^ : : : : : : : : : : : :cornfield
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
######################getaway road
Insanely illegal.
Ridiculously, horribly felonious.
Cause they will come to my house in the middle
of the night and they will lock me up.
Extremely against the law.

In another post he “rapped” about shooting up a kindergarten classroom:

That’s it, I’ve had about enough
I’m checking out and making a name for myself
Enough elementary schools in a ten mile radius
to initiate the most heinous school shooting ever
imagined
And hell hath no fury like a crazy man in a
kindergarten class
The only question is . . . which one?

Do you feel uncomfortable yet? You can also check out the hearing transcript for more of Elonis’ disconcerting posts. By now, you’re probably pretty creeped out by this weird Eminem wannabe. Well, he served his time: a 44-month sentence. What makes me see red is why he was convicted.

Elonis landed in the slammer for “transmit[ting] in interstate or foreign commerce any
communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another…” Anyone else think it’s problematic that despite his threats, which blatantly targeted his wife, he was sentenced on a technicality?

Cyber threats are common; Elonis’ wife is not alone. Now the media is examining when rap crosses the line from being “gangsta” to being threatening? This issue is at the crux of the case the Supreme Court will hear in the upcoming term.

True Threats

While true threats are not protected by the First Amendment, the Supreme Court is struggling with ambiguities like cyber threats. The last time the court had a case involving threats was the 2003 case Virginia v. Black et al. The court defined true threats as “statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.”

Elonis defended his posts as art, saying he therefore lacked intent to actually carry out those threats. But his threats were specific, well thought-out, and frightening. So were his posts true threats or merely artistic expression? That’s exactly the question SCOTUS will have to answer.

When Does Rap go too Far?

Elonis is one of many who have been put on trial for violent content in rap lyrics. Now who doesn’t love some good ol’ fashioned hate-the-world, go burn in hell, Eminem-style rap? I actually love Eminem – my iTunes holds precisely 54 of his songs. Yes, his raps are graphic, violent, angry, and sometimes downright grotesque. But, aside from his mother, whom he actually bought a mansion, he does not outline specific plans for a single person’s demise. He’s just angry at the world, that’s all.

So, this is where Eminem’s content differs from Elonis’, among others. The debate is tangled — scholars and legal professionals need to consider artistic expression, intent, and how that plays out in the cyber world.

A group of legal scholars are defending Elonis and his “artistic expression” posts on Facebook. Clay Calvert, Erik Nielson, and Charis E. Kubrin argue that the context in which artistic expression is interpreted depends on its vessel of dissemination, in this case, social media. So, higher courts have difficulty determining the context and the intent, which both affect the verdict of threat cases involving social media posts.

The subject is highly complex, but my opinion on this is simple. If you post poorly written yet fear-inducing threats to Facebook, you deserve to be put away. Elonis is clearly not stable, as you can see from the nostalgic posts about his ex-wife, whom he threatened to behead.

Rap is considered an art form, so it’s protected by the First Amendment. But throw social media into the mix and our Constitution becomes difficult to apply. So, yes, I’m relieved the Supreme Court will rule on this convoluted case because it will have long-reaching ramifications. I would certainly feel more secure if social media threats were considered more seriously, especially considering the shooting in Santa Barbara last month.

When it comes to threats, there is a fine line between protecting our First Amendment rights and protecting our citizens. My hope is that the Supreme Court will find a solution by defining when threats should be taken literally and when they are artistic ploys.

Featured image courtesy of [dcwriterdawn via Flickr]

Natasha Paulmeno

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

The post Supreme Court to Determine How Free Speech Applies to Social Media appeared first on Law Street.