Remember the outrage over the supposed “pink slime” in our meat a few years ago? While the outrage seemingly died down quickly, a South Dakota-based meat producer is suing ABC, senior national correspondent Jim Avila, and news anchor Diane Sawyer for those reports, claiming that they were defamatory.

The company, Beef Products, Inc. (BPI), was the focus of a series of reports Avila did in 2012. In the reports, Avila described a practice BPI uses, where it supplements its ground beef with meat from trimmings of the cow, including muscle and connective tissue. According to BPI, this is a common procedure, and it’s totally fine to eat. Additionally it lessens the fat content of ground beef. BPI called this addition “finely textured beef product” but ABC and Avila called it “pink slime.” The name “pink slime” was first dubbed by a former USDA microbiologist in an email around the agency. Here’s an example of Avila talking about the “pink slime.”

BPI is now suing for defamation, claiming that the news reports seriously damaged its business. It claims that ABC either knew it was providing false information, or acted with a reckless disregard for the truth. In terms of proving harm, the company says that its business seriously suffered because of these highly-publicized reports. It argues that it had to lay off approximately 700 workers and close three plants as a result. BPI says that its weekly sales were cut in more than half–from five million pounds a week to less than two million pounds a week.

ABC is arguing that it disseminated the information responsibly. After all, it never claimed that “pink slime” was unsafe to eat, just that consumers had the right to know what was in the food they were purchasing.

The trial is currently underway–jury selection just finished up today. Given the sheer amount that BPI is asking for–the company is claiming damages as high as $1.9 billion, but Eriq Gardner of the Hollywood Reporter explains that the potential verdict could get as high as $5.7 billion–the case is one to watch.

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 Beef Company Sues ABC for Calling its Meat “Pink Slime” appeared first on Law Street.

A new season of the hit TV show “Veep,” starring Julia-Louis Dreyfus, will premiere this weekend. And given that politics in real life, with President Donald Trump in the White House, have become increasingly gaffe-worthy, many fans were nervous to see how the show would (or wouldn’t) change. It actually turns out that one joke, about a “golden shower,” had to be edited out, because it was just a little too on the nose given a story about Trump that broke just a few months ago.

A Hollywood Reporter guest column by David Mandel, the current “Veep” showrunner, described how it’s difficult to tell if people are still willing to laugh at politics after Trump’s election. After all, so many facets of the Trump Administration feel like they’re straight out of a “Veep” storyline. Look no further for example, than the New York Times story about how Trump staffers: “confer in the dark because they cannot figure out how to operate the light switches in the cabinet room.”

And after Press Secretary Sean Spicer recently made astonishingly stupid comments about the Holocaust, someone made a Spicer-“Veep” mashup that Dreyfus herself ended up tweeting out.

This feels like an Emmy winning episode to me.https://t.co/DU4o08Ot2P

— Julia Louis-Dreyfus (@OfficialJLD) April 12, 2017

But the new season of “Veep” will pick up with Selina Meyer, the main character, about a year after she lost her own election for president. And the writers and others involved in the show made it clear that they’re glad to have a “former president” storyline instead of spoofing a real-life Trump.

However, Mandel did write about one specific storyline that had to be edited out:

So much of Veep is often just sitting around thinking: “What’s the dumbest thing that could happen?” They’re doing stuff that we couldn’t invent if we tried. The only thing we did have to change –it sounds like a bad joke, but it’s true–was a ‘golden shower’ joke in one of the episodes where someone is yelling at Jonah [Timothy Simons] about a golden shower. We hadn’t filmed it yet, and we realized, ‘Oh, we need to change that’ [because of the Trump-Russia dossier]. Who knew we would literally have to change a Veep golden showers joke because of the real president of the United States of America? It doesn’t get any weirder than that.

So, while “Veep” will come back this weekend, the show may feel a little different (although likely just as funny!) And there’s only Trump’s real life comedy to blame for that.

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 A “Veep” Presidential Problem: Comedy in the Age of Trump appeared first on Law Street.

Kim Kardashian is considering going to law school. No, this is not an Onion headline–the media personality told the magazine Wonderland that she’d like to go to law school at some point during the road. Kardashian said: “If things slow down and I had time, I really want to go to law school. Just something I can do in my older age.”

via GIPHY

Kardashian’s late father, Robert Kardashian Sr. was an accomplished lawyer, and served on the defense team for O.J. Simpson. He was recently portrayed by David Schwimmer in the “The People v O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story”; the Kardashians were also portrayed as children on the show. And Kim has expressed interest in law and crime before–in an interview earlier this year, she said that if she wasn’t famous she’d be a “forensic investigator.” She told Vogue Australia:

I would be a forensic investigator and live a normal life. I’m gonna be that annoying, pushy mom and say I want to live vicariously through my kids and have them be a forensic investigator.

There are a few hurdles that Kim would presumably have to cross in order to go to law school. She never went to college, and there are only a few law schools that accept people who don’t already have a Bachelor’s degree. For example, Western Michigan University-Cooley Law School does accept students who didn’t complete an undergraduate degree but do have a certain number of undergraduate credit hours under their belt.

So will Kim actually go for it? It doesn’t sound like she’s planning on it anytime soon, but we can keep an eye out.

via GIPHY

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 Law Schools: Would you Admit Kim Kardashian? appeared first on Law Street.

Allison Janney fulfilled a lot of “The West Wing” fan fantasies today when she went to the White House and briefed the press corps as C.J. Cregg. For those of you who haven’t watched “The West Wing,” Cregg was Janney’s Emmy-winning portrayal of the White House Press Secretary. Also those of you who haven’t watched “The West Wing” should do so immediately, but that’s a whole different point. But Janney’s appearance in the White House briefing room wasn’t just intended to cause nostalgic revelry for fans of the Aaron Sorkin classic. While borrowing current White House Press Secretary John Earnest’s podium, Janney talked about combatting the incredibly serious opioid epidemic in the United States.

While Janney’s reason for visiting was serious and apt, it didn’t stop her from making some delightful references to the show. She began by telling the assembled press that she was filling in for Earnest because he had a root canal–a favorite funny moment from the show. She also promised that she would perform the “Jackal,” another one of C.J. Cregg’s trademark scenes.

But after just a few good-hearted jokes, Janney told the press why she was really there. She discussed the show she now stars on, called “Mom,” which features recovery from substance abuse as a consistent theme. Janney also has a personal history with substance abuse recovery–her brother committed suicide after a long struggle with addiction. While at the podium, Janney explained that the White House is honoring 10 individuals as “Champions of Change” for their work to fight substance abuse and to help those who are now in recovery. Janney stated:

This is a disease that can touch anybody, and all of us can help reduce drug abuse through evidence-based treatment, prevention and recovery. Research shows it works, and courageous Americans show it works every day.

On her way out, one of the reporters asked Janney who President Jed Bartlett (played by Martin Sheen) would hypothetically support in the Democratic primary. Janney replied with all the grace and poise of her press secretary character, retorting: “I think you know the answer to that question.” That quip could be a reference to the fact that her fellow “The West Wing” star, Bradley Whitford, has said that the fictional president would vote for Hillary Clinton. Whitford stated: “There’s no doubt in my mind that Hillary would be President Bartlet’s choice. Nobody is more prepared to take that position on day one.”

Cregg’s appearance, while certainly unexpected, was very welcome and entertaining–and supported a great cause. As the 2016 primaries drag on and just get more depressing, sometimes it’s fun to be reminded of one of the best fictional presidents of all time.

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 Allison Janney Speaks About Substance Abuse at WH, Fulfills Our “West Wing” Dreams appeared first on Law Street.

Netflix is a behemoth in the entertainment world, beloved by its 75 million paying subscribers. During a recent presentation, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings announced that the service is now truly international, as Netflix’s streaming platform is available in over 200 countries, not including the ever-obstinate China. But it’s not all good news–during the same presentation, Hastings mentioned subscribers’ use of VPNs when streaming Netflix, adding that Netflix would soon begin blocking users from accessing Netflix through a VPN.

VPN stands for Virtual Private Network, and in order to understand what a VPN is, let’s take a look at its most common use: in business, a company might have an ‘intranet,’ which is a network that doesn’t connect to the outside world, but links together all of that company’s servers and computers. An employee working from home or abroad could use a VPN to connect to that private network, and browse through the files as if they were physically there.

Now picture that instead of accessing a business’s intranet, you’re connected to someone else’s internet. This would mean you can browse the web from the geographical point of view of another person. That’s where Netflix users see an opportunity: because much of Netflix’s expansive catalog is locked to specific regions, a user in the U.K. could ‘pretend’ to be in Tennessee, and catch up on a U.S. exclusive show.

Why does Netflix geo-block some of its content? And why do they care if users circumvent those blocks? Netflix gets distribution rights to its content through agreements with content owners. These agreements have limitations to make them affordable for Netflix, which might include limiting how long the content is available online, how many seasons or episodes of a show will be streamed, and where it is allowed to stream. A content owner might have an existing agreement to exclusive streaming rights with a service provider in the EU, and so they can only offer their show to Netflix for streaming in the U.S.

Netflix is now acting on its promise, and users worldwide are finding that their visits to Netflix are blocked if they have an active VPN. Many subscribers are angry because their Netflix selections are narrowed down to their country’s content, while the majority of subscribers who don’t use VPNs will experience no change.

It’s hard to blame Netflix for accommodating the requirements set by the content owners. This may be part of the reason Netflix has been accelerating production of Netflix Originals, which it retains full control of, and can stream worldwide without the permission of others. But there is also a reason that Netflix users feel entitled to a broader selection of content–physical boundaries for online content feels antiquated in an increasingly globalized world. It’s reminiscent of the irksome region-locked DVDs we used to struggle with. If I can Facetime a friend in Germany and show her a Youtube video over the air, how do region-locks on the world wide web make sense? We can hope that Netflix pressures content owners to be less restrictive when cutting deals, but until then, subscribers in the U.S. will have to go without streaming “22 Jump Street.”

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Everyone Panic: Netflix is Actually Blocking VPNs Now appeared first on Law Street.

About a year ago, MTV started “Look Different,” an online and on-air campaign with the goal of erasing the hidden racial, gender, and anti-LGBT bias that remains in our society. A new ad that is a part of Look Different was just launched this week and has left many people feeling uncomfortable. The campaign posted a faux advertisement called “White Squad” Wednesday evening on YouTube where it has well over 100,000 views so far. The ad aims to lessen racial prejudices but may be creating more controversy than conversation.

The commercial acknowledges the fact that white privilege exists and tries to make it comical by encouraging minorities to call the “White Squad” to help them in situations where they are often treated unfairly–like to win court cases, buy better homes, and receive scholarships. The ad says White Squad will “give the full benefits of being white in the legal system.” Although this was a satirical ad, most first time viewers had no clue it was fake and couldn’t believe what they were seeing. The campaign even went so far as to make a fake website for White Squad which links to the Look Different online site.

As expected, Twitter has had a field day with the commercial. There was a pretty broad range of reactions:

I’d literally forgotten ALL about MTV til #WhiteSquad. Of ALL the desperate promo attempts I’ve seen, when ALL else fails, use Black People.

— Black Reign (@KockTailz) July 16, 2015

Bruh I’d call White Squad YESTERDAY.

— Jer’Maine Montiel (@JerMaineMontiel) July 16, 2015

White Squad…. How yall feel about this? I think it’s great because you see what people of color go through on a daily basis.

— Fonzio (@alphcee) July 16, 2015

You don’t CHALLENGE #WhitePrivilege by making a joke of it. Nothing is funny about being discriminated against. #EpicFail#WhiteSquad

— Black Reign (@KockTailz) July 16, 2015

Yes, the ad does shine a light on issues that people of color have to face. But, people are offended and uncomfortable because they feel that the commercial is making fun of real life struggles minorities deal with every day–struggles that can’t just easily be fixed by calling someone who is white to come out and help. For decades people have known that racial privileges exists, but simply showing a commercial will not make it go away. MTV acknowledging that white privilege exists was a very small step toward working to solve this huge problem.

This isn’t the only example of MTV addressing racial issues head on in a controversial manner. MTV is planning to air a documentary called “White People” which shows how it feels “to be young and white.” Network executives say the show’s aim is to “challenge ‘whiteness’ and help ‘address racial bias through honest, judgment-free dialogue.'”

This documentary promises to elicit some interesting reactions as well–I for one am looking forward to hearing everyone’s opinions on the topic. With MTV’s decrease in ratings over the past few years, people are questioning if it has started talking about racial discrimination to draw attention back to the network. While that may or may not be the case, MTV’s attempts to spark social conversations promises to be an interesting (and controversial) move to watch.

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 MTV’s “White Squad”: Funny or Offensive? appeared first on Law Street.

We have all seen them, whether we are sitting in a doctor’s office in the middle of the day, home sick during the week, or just because they’re kind of fun. Either way, court shows like “Judge Judy” and “Judge Joe Brown” seem to have captured the world’s attention. Recently, Judith Sheindlin–Judge Judy–signed on for her eighteenth season of the show, earning herself $47 million a season for what is famously known as just “52 days of work a year.”

Judge Judy, and all of the others–Brown, Lane, Mathis, Hatchett, Alex, Rinder, etc.–are all practicing lawyers. Most were retired or on the way to retirement when they were discovered by a television producer. But that still begs the question: how exactly do TV courts work, what are their legal implications, and are they at all real?

 What are Court TV shows?

Court television shows are usually on in the middle of the day, often right when people are getting home from work and starting to cook dinner. The topics usually aren’t heavy things like murder, drugs, or assault cases. Instead they consider lighter issues like rent problems, car damages, or theft. Judges tend to be funny and lash out with zingers toward the people involved in the case. It is all about entertainment, not a real legal process.

However, the shows are among the highest watched for their time slot, which means that if one judge isn’t connecting with the audience, another one is right in line to take that spot.

Infographic courtesy of Online Paralegal Programs.

 How do you end up on TV court?

Getting onto a court show is actually one of the smartest things a person can do, even if he ends up being portrayed as the “villain” in the narrative. Why? Participants all stand to make money.

In general, most of the cases that end up going on to TV shows are cases that would otherwise be heard in small-claims court. According to FindLaw, there’s only a certain amount of money litigants can receive. For example, individuals who appear on “Judge Judy” would be able to receive a maximum of $5,000. It’s safe to assume that the rest of the shows have relatively similar limits.

According to FindLaw, regardless of the outcomes on any of the shows that play nationally, there are benefits to both parties in the case. The shows actually pay for the arbitration awards, which may be why people don’t always seem to be too worked up at the end in the cool down interviews. They also pay for the litigants’ airfare and hotel expenses.

In other cases, there have been situations where producers have found people who were popular or characters already and they have actually been courted into doing the show. For example, local Cleveland celebrity Colin Dussault was asked to be part of a newer judge show called “Hot Bench.”

A Hollywood producer contacted Dussault after “field researchers” came across his small-claims lawsuit against his sister, which he filed in Lakewood Municipal Court in January. In a nutshell, they’ve got issues with who should pay the ongoing bills for a double they inherited and both live in. (Double Trouble?)

In addition to prompt payment of any settlement, the producer promised, Dussault would get an additional “guaranteed minimum payment” just for being on the show!

 What happens on a TV court show?

Court shows like Judge Judy aren’t actually court cases, but instead they are an arbitration process, which is a way to resolve disputes without actually going to court. An arbitrator, always some sort of neutral party, hears a case and makes a binding decision. It’s less formal than a court case, but it does require training

The shows are all filmed at studios in Los Angeles near many different studios that also happen to film television shows. In fact, “Judge Judy” is filmed right next to “Judge Joe Brown.” In order to ensure a full audience, the producers of all of the shows will hire extras who comprise the entire gallery and who sign waivers to stop the disclosure of any details. However, they also take visitors who are willing to sign similar forms.

What happens after the show?

As a general rule, arbitration awards cannot be appealed. But there have been a few cases in which, according to The New York Times,  TV judge rulings have been overturned through other court systems. This can be because the artbitration didn’t cover everything necessary or if the case was found to be beyond the scope of arbitration.

According to FindLaw:

For example, a New York family court in 1999 overruled part of a “Judge Judy” decision because it went beyond the scope of the arbitration, the New York Law Journal reports. The parties in that case had agreed to arbitrate a dispute over personal property — but Judge Judy’s ruling also granted child custody and visitation rights.

In 2000, Judge Judy had one of her decisions overturned…In the case B.M. v. D.L., the parties appeared in front of Sheindlin to solve a personal property dispute. Sheindlin ruled on that dispute, but also made a decision on the parties’ child custody and visitation rights. One of the parties appealed in court, and the family court overturned the custody and visitation part of the decision because they weren’t covered by the agreement to arbitrate.

Ethical Concerns

For people who have never really been in a court room, it can seem like there aren’t really any ethics that exist when it comes to television court. For one, there are no lawyers even present on the television shows. There are problems, of course, with the editing and the way people are portrayed by the producers of the show.

Recently a committee was formed to discuss the problems with court television shows and the impact they have on the lives of those who appear–often people who are young and trying to avoid paying costs that they can’t afford. The committee, comprised of retired judges, said:

In this modern media culture once the taping is done and it is released into the public domain it is there forever and can come up from time to time during this defendant’s entire life. It could be used against this person in a personal, political, economic or social situation to his or her extreme detriment. Your recitations that the videos in your court are a number one rated show broadcasted to 200,000 households in three counties speak volumes in this regard. How might it appear to a defendant that he or she must be asked by the judge to waive any objection to appear on television? Would they be intimidated by the question knowing that the judge encourages this production?

These cases are often straight forward, but played up for laughs, drama, and a clear-cut decision. There have been many questions about the fates of people who end up on reality shows, and that is a question that exists with the “reality” of court shows as well.

Conclusion

So yes, the decisions on TV court shows are a reality–someone has to pay (usually the show) and someone is in trouble (usually younger-skewing teens or adults who can’t afford much else). You’re getting, in essence, a half-truth of what the court process is actually like.

One final word of caution to anyone who found this on a search: Appearing on a TV court show like “Judge Judy” involves signing off on a lot of legal fine print. You may want to consult an attorney to make sure your rights are protected before you pursue your 15 minutes of fame.

 Resources

Futon Critic: Ethics Panel Rips TV Drug Court

Mental Floss: What Legal Authority Does Judge Judy Have?

Cleveland.com: Playing Hard to Get When Courted by Reality TV Court Show

Fact: Judge Judy Overruled by Judge Jeffrey

Futon Critic: Judge Judy Sheindlin, Host of Syndication’s #1 Rated Show “Judge Judy,” Signs Multiyear Deal Through 2020

Frugal Confessions: It Pays to Have Your Small Claims Case on a Court Television Show

Washington Post: The Lasting Appeal of TV’s Top Woman: Judge Judy

Vice: These Guys Made Up a Fake Case to Get on ‘Judge Judy’

Editor’s Note: This post has been revised to credit select information to FindLaw. 

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s the Verdict? The Truth Behind TV Court Shows appeared first on Law Street.

Author Eric Dahl claims that Toyota stole a story from his book and used it in a recent Toyota Camry commercial.

According to Dahl’s complaint, his book, “B.B. King’s Lucille and the Loves Before Her,” contains a story that is similar to the story that occurs in a Toyota Camry Commercial.  In particular, Dahl alleges that he visited a pawn shop in Las Vegas and purchased a Gibson Lucille guitar.  He researched the guitar’s origin and discovered that the Gibson Lucille—the Prototype 1—was the same guitar that Gibson gave B.B. King on his eightieth birthday that was later stolen from his home. Dahl stated that he agreed to give King the Gibson guitar without compensation, and King arranged a meeting where King autographed another Gibson Lucille and gave it to Dahl in appreciation for his generosity.

If you have watched television in the last few weeks then you may have seen a Toyota Camry commercial where a girl finds a guitar, tracks down the previous owner — who happens to be B.B. King — gives him the guitar, and is given an autographed guitar in return. Take a look at the commercial below.

Dahl claims that Toyota’s commercial is a derivative work and is suing for copyright infringement.

Section 101 of the Copyright Act defines a derivative work as “a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a ‘derivative work.’”

Under United States Copyright Law, derivative works give authors exclusive rights to license new works based on the author’s work. For example, motion pictures based on novels are considered derivative works because they are works based on the author’s work (i.e., the novel). In this case, the Toyota Camry commercial may be a derivative work because it is based on Dahl’s work, and Dahl never licensed use of his book to Toyota.

In order for Dahl to have a claim for copyright infringement, he must prove two elements: that Dahl has a valid copyright in his work, and that Toyota copied constituent elements of his book.  In other words, the second element means that Dahl has to prove that Toyota actually copied Dahl’s work, and Toyota improperly appropriated Dahl’s work.

Proving copying is a factual question, which can be proven by direct evidence like testimony; however, copying is usually proven through circumstantial evidence like proving that Toyota had access to Dahl’s work, and there is a substantial similarity between Dahl’s book and the Toyota Camry commercial.

Dahl claims that Toyota had access to his book. The Entertainment Law Digest states that “members of Gibson Guitar who were aware of his book and the story of the returned Gibson Lucille prototype were consulted by Toyota and the advertising production crew and confirmed the ad is based on the account in Dahl’s book.”

Thus because Dahl owns a valid copyright of his work, and Toyota may have had access to Dahl’s book, there might be circumstantial evidence that Toyota committed copyright infringement. However, we will have to wait and see Toyota’s answer.  My guess is that Toyota will claim fair use in defense of its commercial.

Joseph Perry

Joseph Perry is a graduate of St. John’s University School of Law whose goal is to become a publishing and media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and volunteering at the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries. Contact Joe at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Author Sues Toyota Over B.B. King Commercial appeared first on Law Street.

UPDATE: October 25, 2014

Well, that was quick. As of today TLC has pulled the plug on its uber successful reality show “Here Comes Honey Boo Boo.” The announcement comes after weeks of speculation and reports asserting that Mama June, Honey Boo Boo’s mother, has been dating a convicted sex offender since splitting with her long-time partner Sugar Bear.

Here is the family’s response to the news, posted to their Facebook fan page earlier today:

According to Mama June in the video, she is not dating Mike McDaniel, who was convicted of aggravated child molestation in 2004.

“The statement of me dating a sex offender is totally untrue. Pumpkin (June’s daughter) has openly said that I’m not dating him … I would never, ever, ever, ever put my kids in danger.”

TLC, unsurprisingly, has been cautious when addressing this situation. “TLC has cancelled the series ‘Here Comes Honey Boo Boo’ and ended all activities around the series, effective immediately. Supporting the health and welfare of these remarkable children is our only priority. TLC is faithfully committed to the children’s ongoing comfort and well-being.”

No word yet from Sugar Bear on this controversy. It remains to be seen if the Shannon-Thompson family’s fans are as loyal as those of another major cable network’s reality family: the Robertsons of “Duck Dynasty” on A&E. A&E briefly barred the Robertson family patriarch from filming when he likened homosexuality to bestiality in a GQ interview. The whole family threatened to walk and many viewers revolted against the network, which later walked back the suspension.

Read our prior coverage on Mama June and Sugar Bear’s split, which kicked off speculation over the show’s future, here.

UPDATE October 25, 2014: Anna Shannon Cardwell, the oldest daughter of Mama June Shannon, reportedly was the eight-year-old child who McDaniel molested between 2002 – 2003. Cardwell defended her mother against reports that she was dating the man who spent ten years in jail for her molestation, until yesterday when she received more information about her mother’s relationship. Cardwell reportedly came forward with this information about her experience because of the nature of what she sees as her mother’s betrayal.

—

Chelsey Goff (@cddg) is Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University in DC. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at cgoff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Daniel Horatio Agostini via Flickr]

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post TLC Cancels Honey Boo Boo, Possible Sex Offender Connection appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here for detailed ranking information for each of the Top 10 Law Schools for Entertainment Law.

Featured image courtesy of [Widener University School of Law via Flickr]

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Entertainment Law 2014 appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here to read more coverage on Law Street’s Law School Specialty Rankings 2014.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of [Coolcaesar via Wikipedia]

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 Top 10 Law Schools for Entertainment Law: #4 UCLA School of Law appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here to read more coverage on Law Street’s Law School Specialty Rankings 2014.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of [Pbgr via Wikipedia]

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 Top 10 Law Schools for Entertainment Law: #5 USC Gould School of Law appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here to read more coverage on Law Street’s Law School Specialty Rankings 2014.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of [William Ward via Flickr]

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 Top 10 Law Schools for Entertainment Law: #6 Fordham Law School appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here to read more coverage on Law Street’s Law School Specialty Rankings 2014.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of [Jonathan71 via WikiMedia]

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 Top 10 Law Schools for Entertainment Law: #7 New York University School of Law appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here to read more coverage on Law Street’s Law School Specialty Rankings 2014.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of: [Alertjean via WikiMedia]

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 Top 10 Law Schools for Entertainment Law: #8 Villanova Law School appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here to read more coverage on Law Street’s Law School Specialty Rankings 2014.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of: [15Everett via WikiMedia]

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 Top 10 Law Schools for Entertainment Law: #9 Vanderbilt University Law School appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here to read more coverage on Law Street’s Law School Specialty Rankings 2014.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of [Jonathan Yu via Flickr]

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 Top 10 Law Schools for Entertainment Law: #10 Stanford Law School appeared first on Law Street.

Sarah Palin is fed up with the Liberal Media bias and is doing something about it. She started an online TV channel called the Sarah Palin Channel that’s going to make Fox News look like MSNBC.

I’m scared too, Catelyn.

In the introduction video, Palin says this is going to be a news channel that is going to be a lot more than news: it will get around the “media filter” and “find solutions.” Reading between the lines, Palin is saying, “The media has filtered me out, so I had to start my own channel. And I want to share my solutions that were too crazy for FOX.” In the video Palin also says that her channel will cut through “Washington DC’s phony capitalism.” So I take that to mean she will continue to call Barack Obama a socialist, while refusing to look at the actual definition of socialism.

The channel will also have very engaging guests and while she did not mention any names, a clip of Ted Cruz campaigning was rolling in the background. I thoroughly look forward to their “Who hates Obama more” and “Because the Bible told me so” segments.

Also, there is good news if you were a fan of Sarah Palin’s reality TV show. The channel will also give viewers a glance into her family’s daily life. They are just like any other American family…that has a ton of money. Watching the Palins really allows you to see how she relates to all those average Joes (read: white people) she talks so much about. And I am sure she will argue that because of her close proximity to Russia, she knows better than anyone how to deal with Putin.

Of course, if this channel is going to be more than news, it might be looking for some TV show ideas. Well, the masses have taken to Twitter to help Palin with some ideas for brilliant television. Here are some of the best:

The Big Benghazi Theory #PalinTVShows

— Lizz Winstead (@lizzwinstead) July 28, 2014

I Love Lucy But Deport Ricky #PalinTVShows

— David Corn (@DavidCornDC) July 28, 2014

America’s Funniest Stump Speeches #PalinTVShows

— CC:Indecision (@indecision) July 28, 2014

#palintvshows Everybody Loves Reagan

— James VanLaningham (@jdvanlaningham) July 28, 2014

One of the central themes of the channel, according to Palin, is that it’s about you. But there is one person the site focuses on much more than any other and I doubt that is the “you” Palin was referring to. This person is President Obama, and wow does he seem to be the main focus of the Sarah Palin Channel. Three of the seven stories on the site feature the President, and it even has a clock counting down to the end of the Obama administration. I am guessing it is a countdown to remind Palin when she will lose any relevance she might still have.

I’m laughing too, B-rock.

So in conclusion, Sarah Palin has her own TV channel because being a contributor on FOX News was too constraining for this maverick. The channel is supposedly about you, the viewer, but primarily focuses on Sarah Palin, her family, and Obama. And sadly, just in case you had any hope that this was a joke, this is not Tina Fey parodying Palin — though it can be very hard to tell the difference.

—

Matt DeWilde (@matt_dewilde25) is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [eskimojoe via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post America, Sarah Palin Has Her Own TV Channel appeared first on Law Street.

A few years ago, the only way you could watch a TV program was to catch it when it was being aired. Then we got DVR, and then there were shows available online on demand; and now we have Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, and thousands of other (legal and illegal) ways to get our fix. And in so many ways, the Internet has completely revolutionized the way we watch TV. Because for a lot of us, TV isn’t contained to a physical television anymore. In fact, I, for the first time in about 3.5 years actually have a real, concrete television in my apartment. It only has the most basic of cable, but I often forget it’s there, because I’m so used to watching any and all TV programming on my computer.

So here are 4 different ways that the Internet has revolutionized TV…and whether these changes are good or bad.

4. We have an ability to find old shows that are new to us. 

Before this weird meld of Internet and TV, the only way to discover a show that was off the air was to catch reruns. Growing up, I watched plenty of shows this way, but they were often out of order, disjointed, and difficult to follow. The Internet allows us to watch a show from the beginning, even if it hasn’t aired on TV in any capacity in years. For example, my freshman year of college, most of my roommates and I got really into The West Wing. It had originally aired 1999-2006, so given that I was in middle school at the time, it obviously hadn’t caught my attention. And it’s not just my friends–when both House of Cards and Scandal began airing, I heard them compared to the incredibly idealistic liberal love letter that is The West Wing by other college students. Tons of political junkies my age are discovering the show that we were just a few years too young for when it originally aired. A couple days ago, The Wire did a “best fictional president” bracket in honor of the West Wing, and of course, President Jed Bartlett won it. I’m betting the reason that The West Wing remains in our memory and is still so regularly referenced is because the Internet allows new watchers to discover it whenever they want, in fact, I’m pretty sure it’s still streaming on Netflix. 

Good or Bad? Good. Finding a show that speaks to your interests is a great thing. Now my West Wing example is incredibly silly, I know, but I’ve absolutely used common interest in that show as a conversation topic before in my daily life. Most of my friends have seen it, and it’s just another thing that connects us. TV, for better or worse, plays a large part in our lives, and it’s pretty cool that the Internet has opened us up to shows from before our time. This doesn’t extend purely to shows that are before our time, this also allows us to see shows from other countries that usually wouldn’t make it to our TVs, which is also pretty cool!

3. Shows made exclusively for Netflix and other online networks. 

This is also an incredibly recent phenomenon. In the past two years or so, Netflix has released a number of original series. The two most well known are probably House of Cards and Orange is the New Black, but there are a few others, including Hemlock Grove, and Lilyhammer, and there are also exclusive documentaries and stand-up comedy shows. These are high quality shows, and because they aren’t airing on TV, Netflix can afford to be risqué. This year, Netflix made history by being the first non-TV network to win an Emmy. Netflix isn’t the only Internet network to create their own content, though they are probably the most critically acclaimed and well-known. Amazon Prime and Hulu have also started producing their own content.

Good or bad? Good. More quality content is good for the viewers, to be sure, and it opens up opportunities for more experimental shows that networks may not want to chance, given that the content is less severely constrained by broadcasting. Television networks are complaining that it’s cutting into their viewership, but hopefully the competition will force them to up their game. After all, do we really need another “Real Housewives of ______” show?

Sheldon doesn’t think so.

2. The Veronica Mars Kickstarter and Arrested Development Relaunch. 

I will unabashedly admit that Veronica Mars and Arrested Development are arguably two of my favorite shows ever. In some ways, they have a similar story–they were both cult favorites with high critical ratings but pretty low viewership. They both got cancelled after three seasons. And they both got a final hurrah in the last year–Arrested Development through a Netflix original fourth season, and Veronica Mars through a full length movie that was released late last week. I, like so many other fans, anticipated the extensions to both of these shows with bated breath.

The relaunch of these two shows is a testament to the seductive power of creating a product for fans. Netflix took a chance on Arrested Development, to be sure, but it was surely backed up by data. Netflix doesn’t release viewership figures, but they must have seen something in the data about the first 3 seasons previously available on the site to make them think that a 4th season would be profitable. A lot of people didn’t actually end up liking the 4th season much, myself included, but the fact that it was even undertaken in the first place says a lot about the lobbying power of fans.

The Veronica Mars is a more perfect example of my point. The movie was primarily funded by a Kickstarter campaign, run by the stars of the show and creator Rob Thomas. The Kickstarter reached $5.7 million in pledges from fans. The fans of the show literally paid to have this movie made–that’s how passionate the fan base is. Those who contributed certain amounts got perks too–like small extra roles, or online access to the movie. The film has gotten mixed reviews (I, for one, loved it!) but the launch has reprised a lot of discussions about how before-it’s-time the show was, like this one about rape culture  or this one about social class. My point is though, that TV is more influenced by fans than ever before.

Good or bad? Both. I loved that both these shows got their much-needed endings, but there is something to be said for letting sleeping dogs lie. The Veronica Mars movie was, in my opinion, good, the Arrested Development season 4 was bad. You know when a kid wants candy and you give it to them and then they get sick from too much sugar? Catering to fans’ whims has the potential to end up like that, and networks need to watch out for being too responsive to fan requests.  

 1. The phenomenon of “binge watching.”

Binge watching is new, created by the ability to access shows online with the internet. Binge watching is defined as 2-6 episodes of one show in a sitting. The only precursor was perhaps the TV marathon, but I don’t really think that counts because even in a marathon, the TV network still did stop airing the marathon at some point. 

We now have the ability to sit on our asses and watch a show for as long as we please. I am absolutely being a gigantic hypocrite right now, because I have totally binge watched quite a few shows, but I am trying to make some effort to stop. Binge watching is when you let Netflix play until the wee hours of the morning, watching a show until it really barely makes sense anymore. It’s when you get that immediate gratification of watching the next episode instead of actually thinking about what you just watched. Roughly 61% of respondents to a Netflix Survey last year say they regularly binge watch. 

Good or bad? Guys, I’ve got to think this is a bad thing. First, I have binge watched many a show that I can barely remember the next day. It’s impossible to thoroughly pay attention to anything that long, at least with the kind of attention that allows you to appropriately appreciate the show. It takes away the ability to talk about the show with your friends and coworkers the next day the way you can when the show is aired once a week on a network. And finally, as big a fan as I am of TV, that’s just too much. So here’s a suggestion–go ahead and binge-watch, in moderation. But take some time to appreciate what you’re watching. And remember, things are changing about TV and you don’t want it all to pass you by because you can’t stop watching House of Cards.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead 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.

Featured Image Courtesy: [Flickr/Wesley Fryer]

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 The Meld of Internet and TV…Good or Bad? appeared first on Law Street.

Good afternoon folks! How many of you got a snow day today? Lucky bitches.

Anyway! Guess what we’re commemorating this month? Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday, yes—but something else. Something a bit less, serious.

The premier of The L Word! Who here remembers that show? Please tell me some of you.

Well, for those of you who live under a rock, The L Word was a Showtime series that followed the lives and loves of a group of lesbian friends living in Los Angeles. It was the first TV show to feature more than one significant lesbian character, and to this day it’s the only show that ever depicted semi-realistic, super-hot lesbian sex.

Who were you 10 years ago? I was an angsty, almost-teenager who dated dumb boys while secretly crushing on older girls. I was goth, or punk, or something, and I was eschewing my dreams of being a writer to halfheartedly pursue my dreams of being a rock star.

It was a weird time.

But 10 years ago, I didn’t have Showtime. I had never heard of The L Word. Netflix was barely a thing. And had my parents walked in on me watching the queer, soft-core porn that is The L Word’s claim to fame, they probably would have sent me away to an all-girls Catholic boarding school. (Kind of a weird disciplinary solution for a Jewish, budding dyke — but that was their go-to threat, nonetheless.)

I didn’t meet the cast of The L Word for another few years, when my first serious girlfriend and I binge-watched most of the series while she was recovering from surgery. Despite the show’s obvious problems — it was depressingly white-washed, hopelessly femme, and wildly unrealistic — I was totally hooked. It was the first time I’d ever seen anything remotely similar to my life up on the screen. And it was hot.

So here we are, a decade later, and everything’s different. I’m a grown-ass woman, with a job and an apartment and a life that’s complicated as fuck. The L Word’s long gone, and it’s been semi-replaced with Orange is the New Black — which is way queerer and more diverse, if slightly less X-rated. Queer characters are gracing the small screen left and right, from Modern Family to The Fosters. Things are good.

But are they really? Because life imitates art. And things are still pretty rough out here.

Poverty and homelessness are still a major problem for queer folks. We’re still met with devastating violence on the streets, and rejection from our families. We’re still faced with higher rates of unemployment, depression, and addiction. We’re still getting deported. We still don’t have health insurance.

Seriously. It’s rough out here.

And we’re not the only ones who feel it. Inequality is at an all-time high, leaving more people out in the cold than ever before. Things are difficult for most of us, regardless of sexuality. But for many, queerness makes it worse.

So, when I look back at The L Word and the world it premiered into 10 years ago, I like to think about how far we’ve come. It’s awesome that dykes on screen aren’t groundbreaking anymore. It’s fabulous that somewhere, someone, somehow, got the funding to represent us — even if it was a limited and problematic representation.

But it’s important to remember how far we have left to go. Just six months before The L Word hit Showtime, the Supreme Court issued a decision on the case Lawrence v. Texas, decriminalizing homosexuality in the United States.

That’s right.

Just six months before the gayest of gay girl shows premiered, queerness was criminal.

And today, a decade later, queers are still grossly underrepresented in the media, while we’re grossly over-represented in the prison population.

How much has really changed? It’s debatable, for sure.

So this month, head on over to Netflix and binge watch The L Word. Get hooked on the melodramatic awfulness and the inhumanly hot sex scenes.

But also remember that queerness is more than a glammed out TV show. And we still have a long-ass way to go.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [kyle rw via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The First Time Lesbians Were Legal (on TV) appeared first on Law Street.

It was the event that no one could stop talking about between 1994 and 1995. Everyone around the country was glued to the television to see what would happen to O.J. Simpson, once-beloved celebrity and accused murderer. Before O.J., there were televised trials of Ted Bundy, the Menendez Brothers, and Jeffrey Dahmer, among others. And since O.J., we’ve televised quite a few high profile trials. For celebrity buffs, Lindsey Lohan’s streamed on TMZ. There was, of course, the horrifying Casey Anthony case that captured national attention during the summer of 2011. Most recently, spectators were able to watch the Jodi Arias and George Zimmerman proceedings from their homes.

In fact, media streams of famous court cases have become rather ubiquitous in American culture. But should they be? We’ve turned everything from Congressional debate to young children in beauty pageants into must-see TV. Should trials be the same way? Read on to learn about the debate over televising trials, and the arguments for and against allowing cameras into courtrooms.

 What are the rules about filming trials?

In the United States, the general rule is that photography and broadcasting of criminal trials in federal courts is banned but can be overridden by a law or another court rule. Many judges decided to ban broadcasting and photography from courtrooms after the O.J. Simpson trial. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that televising trials is not a violation of constitutional due process.  In certain cases, jury deliberations are publicly broadcasted. The broadcasting of criminal trials is very controversial and even the Senate Judiciary Committee and the U.S. Supreme Court have differing views about its propriety.

 What’s the argument for putting criminal trials on TV?

Proponents of televising criminal trials assert various arguments, including that since many Americans have no personal experience with the criminal justice system and many learn about current events entirely from television, televising criminal trials is vital to individuals’ understanding of the legal system.  U.S. Senator Charles Schumer stated that:

Courts are an important part of our government, and the more our government institutions are shown to the public, the more dignified they become, and the more the public comes to understand them. Allowing cameras into our courtrooms will help demystify them and let the public evaluate how well the system works.

Furthermore, a Colorado Supreme Court Justice argued that religious worship and ceremonies are televised and there is no public consensus that religious practices are denigrated when broadcast so there is no reason to assume that the legal process will be.

Even if being televised can make witnesses nervous, that is not necessarily a bad thing. Nervousness makes potential discrepancies and inaccuracies easier to notice and reluctant witnesses can be persuaded by the legal action that brings them to court e.g. police escort and subpoenas. Finally, though there is an ongoing study, there is no evidence that televising criminal cases has more impact on a criminal trial than the presence of an audience, which is generally permitted.

What’s the argument against televising trials?

Opponents of televising criminal trials argue that it creates numerous procedural difficulties that waste the court’s time and may prejudice the defendant. These include the necessity of judges monitoring the manner of the broadcasting. It is also difficult to sequester juries to prevent them from watching the trial on TV. Broadcasting trials makes it more difficult to impanel an impartial jury if a second trial is necessary. There is an increased need for marshals and being broadcast has a significant mental effect on witnesses, jurors, and court officers.

If criminal trials are televised then they become spectacles for the public and the solemnity and dignity of the judiciary will be compromised for the sake of entertainment. For example, after an expert witness testified in Jodi Arias’ case, she was attacked online and the media coverage could have possibly swayed what weight was given to her testimony.

Televising the conduct of judges and lawyers creates a virtually universal conflict of interest within the court system. The Court’s officers will be tempted to consider their television appearance in addition to the needs of their client. It is even possible that a lawyer could weigh his interest in having an attractive TV appearance higher than his duty to his client. Lawyers may try risky strategies in order to impress a potential television market, and judges may behave in ways that are most conducive to their political aspirations even if they are not warranted by the law. If a highly controversial criminal trial (e.g. the George Zimmerman trial) is televised and the verdict is not popular with a significant portion of the public, then an officer of the court or juror could be a target of disgruntled viewers.

Conclusion

We now have the ability to broadcast basically whatever we want. Trials are public for the most part–family, friends, and others who know or do not know the parties are often able to go and observe the proceedings. Televising trials allows everyone to have that access to the justice system, and promotes transparency and understanding. That being said, broadcasting trials and the resulting media coverage and analysis could have potential to affect the trial itself. While justice may very well be blind–should our knowledge of court cases be? It’s not an easy question or an easy answer, but one that will have to be answered very soon.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Constitution: Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment

Second Circuit Court of Appeals: Westmoreland v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.

United States Courts: Cameras in Courts

Maryland Courts: Report of the Committee to Study Extended Media Coverage of Criminal Trial Proceedings in Maryland

Supreme Court: Chandler v. Florida

Additional

RTDNA: Cameras in the Court: A State-by-State Guide

WJBO: Televise Criminal Trials? Of Course?

Guardian: Televising the Courts: the Time Has Come

Voice of America: Chinese Courts Put More Criminal Trials Online

Townhall: Say No to Televised Trial

CJ Online: Time to Tune Out Televised Trials

Debate: Should Criminal Trials be Televised?

DebateWise: Cameras in Courtrooms

Examiner: Zimmerman Case Coverage Highlights Flaws in Media

John Gomis

John Gomis earned a Juris Doctor from Brooklyn Law School in June 2014 and lives in New York City. Contact John at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Criminal Trials on TV: What’s the Verdict? appeared first on Law Street.