After Saturday’s white supremacist riots and violence against counter-protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia, community members in the city and people nationwide are still reeling. Reported Nazi sympathizer James Alex Fields, Jr., plowed his gray Dodge Challenger through a group of counter-protesters, killing 32-year-old legal assistant Heather Heyer and injuring at least 19 others. Fields has been charged with second-degree murder, three counts of malicious wounding, and one count of hit and run.

Fields’ attack was only one piece of the violence on Saturday. White supremacists, neo-Nazis, and neo-Confederates beat counter-protesters and marched through the streets of Charlottesville with Nazi flags, white supremacist images, and anti-Semitic chants. Following the weekend’s attacks, people are passing around the blame for the white supremacists’ acts of terror in Charlottesville.

In an interview with NPR’s David Green, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe explained that the city of Charlottesville had tried to relocate the rally to a more open park about a mile and half away from Emancipation Park, outside of downtown Charlottesville. However, the ACLU of Virginia joined a lawsuit against Charlottesville after the city refused to allow “Unite The Right” organizer Jason Kessler and his supporters to access Emancipation Park on Saturday for the previously approved demonstration.

“That rally should not have been in the middle of downtown – to disperse all those people from the park where they dispersed all over the city streets,” McAuliffe told NPR. “And it became a powder keg. And we got to look at these permits, and we got to look at where we put these rallies and protesters. I got to protect public safety.”

The ACLU of Virginia’s Executive Director Claire G. Gastanaga fired back at McAuliffe on Monday, condemning the violence that took place in Charlottesville but defending her organization’s involvement in the lawsuit against the city.

“We asked the city to adhere to the U.S. Constitution and ensure people’s safety at the protest,” Gastanaga said. “It failed to do so. In our system, the city makes the rules and the courts enforce them. Our role is to ensure that the system works the same for everyone.”

She said the city had failed to present sufficient evidence to the judge that moving the location of the rally would in fact result in no demonstration in downtown Charlottesville, instead of creating a situation in which the city would have to deal with two demonstrations in two separate locations.

“But let’s be clear: our lawsuit challenging the city to act constitutionally did not cause violence nor did it in any way address the question whether demonstrators could carry sticks or other weapons at the events,” Gastanaga said.

Over the years, the ACLU has taken somewhat of an absolutist stance on First Amendment rights, even defending speech that it hates. The organization was recently criticized by one of its own attorneys after the ACLU decided to defend Milo Yiannopoulos, a writer and speaker who is infamous for espousing hate against people of color, Muslims, immigrants, transgender people, and other marginalized individuals.

The events in Charlottesville and the ACLU’s defense of the constitutional rights of white supremacists, Nazis, and other hate-mongers raises an important question: what happens when the First Amendment–or any constitutional right for that matter–is used to protect hate and oppress other people?

In United States v. Schwimmer (1929), a pacifist applicant for naturalization was denied U.S. citizenship because she expressed that she “would not take up arms personally” in defense of the country. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes asserted that the Constitution protects thoughts that we may not agree with.

“Some of her answers might excite popular prejudice, but if there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought–not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate,” Holmes wrote.

That idea has been applied in other cases over the years and has evolved to include hate speech as part of protected speech. The Supreme Court upheld that principle in June when it reaffirmed that hate speech is protected under the First Amendment. Matal v. Tam dealt with the right of Asian American musician Simon Tam and his band “The Slants” to trademark their band name. The band’s trademark application was originally denied because of the band’s inclusion of a racial slur used to refer to Asians in their name.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the government’s restriction of “speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate.'”

Of course, there are exceptions to that rule as well. The “fighting words” doctrine, which arose out of the Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) decision, has been used to curtail speech used to incite violence. According to Chaplinsky, fighting words are “words plainly likely to cause a breach of the peace by the addressee, words whose speaking constitutes a breach of the peace by the speaker — including ‘classical fighting words,’ words in current use less ‘classical’ but equally likely to cause violence, and other disorderly words, including profanity, obscenity and threats.”

So where does the legality of the language used in Charlottesville fall on the protected/unprotected speech spectrum? Well, it can be a bit tricky. During the Charlottesville riots, white supremacists and neo-Nazis chanted anti-Semitic phrases like “Blood and soil,” which is derived from language that was used in Nazi Germany. However, if those chants were not spoken directly to a specific person, precedent may deem them to be hate speech but not fighting words. In other instances, rioters targeted specific individuals with racial and homophobic language. In those cases where particular individuals were singled out, a court might find that the aggressor was using fighting words.

Under current legal precedents, restrictions on free speech are not the clearest. What is clear is that hate groups are able to use discriminatory language that instills fear in marginalized communities without necessarily experiencing repercussions for that speech.

But it is also important, and perhaps more effective, to call out hate speech within our own communities. Eliminating hate speech is an important step in combating racism and other forms of hate, but people must also be willing to confront the beliefs and behavior that language is rooted in. Organizations like the subscription-based service Safety Pin Box provide substantive ways that allies can actively show their support for marginalized people, beyond mere social media posts “in solidarity.” People can also donate to anti-racism organizations and call their local, state, and national representatives in regard to specific issues. The events in Charlottesville are an overt demonstration of white supremacy, but they are only symptomatic of more systematic white supremacist structures. In order to combat white supremacy and other forms of hate, people must first address oppressive language and behavior in their own lives among family, friends, co-workers, and other community members.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Happens When the First Amendment Is Used to Protect Hate? appeared first on Law Street.

Last night, white nationalists descended on Charlottesville, Virginia, where the University of Virginia is located. Many carried nazi or confederate flags, along with other symbols of white supremacy. Charlottesville has turned into somewhat of a powder keg after plans to remove a confederate statute from a nearby park sparked protests. Today, a car drove straight into a crowd of Black Lives Matter counter-protesters, killing at least one and injuring others. In response to the violence brought by the protesters, Governor Terry McAuliffe has declared a state of emergency in Virginia.

Scenes from the events last night and today have reverberated on social media, with many calling it out for what it is: blatant white supremacy and domestic terrorism.

Emblematic indeed#Charlottesville pic.twitter.com/qTvTB3BpSa

— Andy Campbell (@AndyBCampbell) August 12, 2017

My full statement on the horrifying white supremacist demonstrations and violence in Charlottesville: pic.twitter.com/IFXmqFLv4i

— Senator Tim Kaine (@timkaine) August 12, 2017

Regardless of who this evildoer is… this is terrorism. #Charlottesville pic.twitter.com/8eOWpJKp5R

— Ammar Campa-Najjar (@ACampaNajjar) August 12, 2017

Mr. President – we must call evil by its name. These were white supremacists and this was domestic terrorism. https://t.co/PaPNiPPAoW

— Cory Gardner (@SenCoryGardner) August 12, 2017

Of course, all eyes were on one particular individual’s reaction. President Donald Trump gave a short statement on Saturday afternoon, saying that “we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides.” But as many pointed out, there aren’t that many sides to this debate: there are violent white supremacists and then there are peaceful counter-protesters.

No, Mr. President, not “many sides.” There is one side with nazi flags and nazi salutes. America is not on that side. https://t.co/sDpFC9buIz

— Senator Dick Durbin (@SenatorDurbin) August 12, 2017

MANY SIDES?!? Ive typed and deleted at least 8 tweets. Words simply arent strong enough to accurately describe how I feel about Donald Trump

— Chris Evans (@ChrisEvans) August 12, 2017

The violence, chaos, and apparent loss of life in Charlottesville is not the fault of “many sides.” It is racists and white supremacists.

— Mark Herring (@MarkHerringVA) August 12, 2017

To be frank, no one expected Trump to have a particularly strong response. Trump had a track record of refusing to condemn white nationalists or violence at his campaign events. But, as the president of the United States, he needs to be doing better. As scenes continue to unfold in Charlottesville, the blatant white supremacy on display needs to be condemned in the harshest of possible terms.

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 State of Emergency Declared in Charlottesville appeared first on Law Street.

Over the weekend, there was yet another clash between protesters over a Confederate monument. This time, the monument in question was an equestrian statue of General Robert E. Lee, located in Charlottesville, Virginia. On June 5, the Charlottesville City Council voted to change the name of the park where the statue is located from Lee Park to Emancipation Park, following up on its February decision to remove the statue. It was one block away from this location that two separate protest groups squared off: the Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan versus a crowd of counter-protesters calling for the statue’s removal. The clash resulted in 22 arrests, according to the Washington Post.

The controversy over the Lee statue in Charlottesville is only the latest in a string of decisions and incidents relating to the removal of Confederate monuments. Read on to learn which statues have been removed so far and what both sides of the debate are saying.

Charleston Shooting Spurs Confederate Flag Debate

The catalyst for this debate was the 2015 Charleston church shooting, in which 21-year-old Dylann Roof killed nine parishioners of the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church. Upon his arrest, Roof admitted to police that the shooting was meant to start a race war. Roof’s manifesto website and Facebook page were also discovered to contain photos of himself posing with several racist symbols, the most prominent being the Confederate flag.

Following the shooting, protesters took to the South Carolina State House in Columbia to demand the removal of the Confederate flag, which had flown on the state house’s grounds since 1961. Several South Carolina legislators supported the flag’s removal, but the cause only received national attention after police arrested 30-year-old Bree Newsome for climbing the flagpole and removing the flag on June 27, 2015. Two weeks later, the legislation passed and the flag was lowered for the final time.

Thousands gathered to watch the flag-lowering ceremony, but not everyone was celebrating. War reenactor Kenneth Robinson and his fellow “soldiers” held a vigil at the state house to “remember the 650,000 casualties of the Civil War,” he told WRAL. “Nine lives matter,” Robinson said referring to the church shooting victims. “All deaths matter, period.”

Cindy Lampley, another reenactor and a descendant of Confederate soldiers, worried that the flag removal would dishonor her relatives. “I think it’s important that we remember them,” she said. “It’s a sad day for me that my ancestors will no longer see their flag flying next to their memorial.”

Which Monuments Have Been Removed So Far?

The debate over the removal of the state house’s Confederate flag has since branched out to include all monuments and memorials to the Confederacy. As opposition grew, state and local lawmakers began to remove several of the Confederate symbols. Here are some recent examples:

New Orleans

Shortly after the Charleston church shooting, New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu called for the removal of four Confederate era monuments. The monuments consisted of three statues of Confederate leaders–Lee, General P.G.T. Beauregard, and President Jefferson Davis–as well as a memorial to the Battle of Liberty Place, an 1874 insurrection by the Crescent City White League.

The New Orleans City Council voted to remove all four monuments in 2014, but it wasn’t until April 2017 that the first of them–the battle memorial–was finally removed. The rest of the statues quickly followed suit, and the final Confederate statue of Lee was removed in May. The city replaced the statues of Lee and Davis with public art and a flag, respectively, but has not disclosed plans for the relocation of the actual monuments.

“These monuments celebrate a fictional, sanitized Confederacy; ignoring the death, ignoring the enslavement, ignoring the terror that it actually stood for,” Landrieu said as Lee’s statue was hauled away by crane.

Charlottesville

Aside from voting to change the name of Lee Park and remove its statue, the city council also voted 3-2 last February to change the name of Jackson Park (after General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson) to Justice Park. However, the city is running into unexpected legal trouble.

The Monument Fund, the Virginia Division Sons of Confederate Veterans, and other groups filed a lawsuit against the city in June, claiming that renaming the parks would be illegal. Attorneys also claim that the deed in which the park land was granted to the city specifically states that the park cannot be renamed. The court has not filed an injunction preventing the city from renaming the parks, but the Lee statue will remain in place until a hearing begins next month.

Richmond

Mayor Levar Stoney announced on June 25 that he had charged a 10-member commission with finding ways to contextualize the city’s Confederate monuments. The Monument Avenue Commission has set up a website seeking public input to “make recommendations to the mayor’s office on how to best tell the real story of [the] monuments.” There are no concrete plans currently in place.

Stoney went on to say that he does not support the outright removal of the monuments. “I wish these monuments had never been built, but like it or not they are part of our history in this city, and removal will never wash away that stain.”

Baltimore

Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, the former mayor of Baltimore, ordered the city to put up interpretive signs beside the city’s four Confederate monuments. The decision came with less than three months left in Rawlings-Blake’s term. She admitted that it was a “short-term solution.” The city council had previously recommended that the city remove tributes to Lee and Jackson, along with a statue of Roger B. Taney.

The current mayor, Catherine Pugh, told the Baltimore Sun in May that she is exploring the possibility of removing the monuments altogether.

Mississippi

The Mississippi flag incorporates the Confederate flag in its top left corner. Carlos Moore, a black Mississippi resident, says the flag constitutes “state-sanctioned hate speech,” and has taken his grievance all the way to the Supreme Court. Moore intends to argue that the flag is a symbol of racism and violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection for all citizens. In October, the Supreme Court will decide whether or not to take the case.

In addition, the city of McComb and all eight of Mississippi’s public universities have stopped flying the flag. The University of Mississippi announced last week that it will post signs on campus denoting which buildings were built with slave labor.

Washington, D.C.

While the nation’s capital has not removed any Confederate monuments as of yet, Georgetown University renamed two of its campus buildings in April. The move was meant to atone for the university’s ties to slavery. The original names honored two school presidents who oversaw an 1838 sale of 272 slaves to fund the school. The buildings’ new names honor Isaac Hawkins, the slave whose name appeared first in the bill of sale, and Anne Marie Becraft, a 19th-century black educator. The university is also giving admissions preference to descendants of the 272 slaves. Mary Williams-Wagner, one of Hawkins’ descendants, said that the university needed to take further steps, such as identifying all descendants of the slaves sold by Georgetown.

Other colleges, such as Harvard, Duke, Yale, Princeton, and Brown, have also addressed their links to slavery and racism. Last February, Yale changed the name of one of its residential colleges from Calhoun College to Grace Hopper College, honoring a distinguished alumna and a “trailblazing computer scientist.”

Arguments For and Against Confederate Monuments

Opposers

So why remove the monuments? The clearest answer is that they are offensive. The statues honor men who fought for the institution of slavery. Those in favor of removing them argue that the current U.S. government should not condone such motivations, even passively. Confederate symbols also played a role in the Charleston church shooting, proving that they can still be seen as symbols of black oppression and white supremacy. Many people are wary that they will inspire another massacre. A good portion of the country would be much happier if the statues were placed in museums and battlefield parks, away from public property.

Supporters

The other side of the debate is a little more complicated. There are those, like Robinson and Lampley, who believe that removing the monuments would dishonor the memory of the Confederate soldiers who fought and died for what they believed in. There are others who see the Confederacy as Southern heritage, and believe that removing its symbols would be akin to removing it from history itself. Others are wary of a slippery slope, pointing out that Washington and Jefferson, along with 10 other presidents, owned slaves themselves. What would stop the country from removing the statues of its founding fathers?

Conclusion

Racial tensions in this country are running high these days, and the debate over Confederate monuments fits in to that conversation. The statues represent a different era, with different ideals and different ways of life. While the modern world has made tremendous strides toward diversity and inclusion, some of these ideologies still persist. The two schools of thought will inevitably clash, and as long as the monuments stand, the protests and counter-protests will continue.

As for the subjects of the monuments, one in particular had some relevant remarks on the subject while alive. In an 1869 letter declining an invitation to a public meeting concerning the war, Lee wrote:

I think it wiser, moreover, not to keep open the sores of war, but to follow the example of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, and to commit to oblivion the feelings it engendered.

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Heritage or Hatred?: The Removal of Confederate Monuments appeared first on Law Street.

After the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) organized a rally over the weekend to protest the removal of a confederate monument in Charlottesville, Virginia, thousands of counter protesters gathered to voice their disgust.

The Charlottesville City Council recently voted to remove a monument of Confederate General Robert E. Lee, but the KKK claims it is part of a sweeping effort to erase white history. The protest was held a block away from Emancipation Park, formerly Lee Park, which was recently renamed. But the statue of Lee riding a horse has yet to be removed.

LIVE from #CharlottesvilleKKK rally—#KKK still protesting. HUNDREDS of Counter protestors –very loud @ACLU #Charlottesville pic.twitter.com/QuShCGeehW

— Bo Erickson (@BoKnowsNews) July 8, 2017

City Councilwoman Kristin Szakos wrote in an editorial that the council’s decision was made to join a “growing group of cities around the nation that have decided that they no longer want to give pride of place to tributes to the Confederate Lost Cause erected in the early part of the 20th century.”

A court order has delayed the removal of the statue until a hearing next month that may just be a precursor to an elongated legal battle, according to NPR.

Not only is the town home to the University of Virginia, but it was also the home of American founding father Thomas Jefferson, and is near his Monticello estate.

Sunday’s protests featured about 30 Klansmen, many of whom arrived armed with handguns, and approximately 1,000 counter protesters, according to the Washington Post. The KKK was escorted by police clad in riot gear as they entered and exited.

The fact that the police force, comprised of local, county, state, and university police, protected the Klansmen, left a bad taste in plenty of people’s mouths after seeing police disproportionately use violence to subdue African-American protests.

The KKK is a hate group. Police are keeping them safe. When Black folks protest for our right to life, police harass and harm us. https://t.co/eVv9Vf4e7m

— Negrita (@HustleAndFro_) July 8, 2017

Charlottesville Mayor Mike Signer previously urged the town’s residents not to “take the bait — to deny the KKK the confrontation and celebrity they desire,” but thousands still felt compelled to voice their disgust with the group’s resurgence.

While the Klansmen attempted to speak publicly to the crowd at multiple points, they were inaudible and drowned out by the noise made by the counter-protesters. Jalane Schmidt, a professor at the university and a vocal supporter of the removal for Lee’s statue, was among the group gathered at the park. She told the Washington Post:

It is important for me to be here because the Klan was ignored in the 1920s, and they metastasized. They need to know that their ideology is not acceptable…I teach about slavery and African American history, and it’s important to face the Klan and to face the demons of our collective history and our original sin of slavery. We do it on behalf of our ancestors who were terrorized by them.

By the end of the day 22 people had been arrested while three others were hospitalized. Two of the medical issues were due to the heat while the other was alcohol-related, according to the Washington Post.

The Klansmen were members of the Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, based in Pelham, North Carolina, about 140 miles across the Virginia border. The group was compelled to fight, in their view, the eradication of white history. While most protesting the statue’s removal were part of the KKK, others, like Brandi Fisher, drove hours from neighboring states to join and voice their concerns.

“I don’t agree with everything the Klan believes, but I do believe our history should not be taken away,” said the West Virginia native. “Are we going to remove the Washington and Jefferson memorials because they were slave owners?”

The KKK also staged a protest last month alongside white nationalist leader Richard Spencer in which the group ominously marched with torches to protest the council’s decision. That earlier protest also drew condemnation from citizens and even Virginia Congressman Tom Perriello.

Get your white supremacist hate out of my hometown. https://t.co/KfkxHImvze

— Tom Perriello (@tomperriello) May 13, 2017

Once the protests ended on Sunday afternoon, police escorted the Klansmen out and asked the counter protesters to disperse. After the police decided the remaining crowd was “an unlawful assembly,” the police force donned masks and released gas canisters to disperse the crowd, according to the Washington Post.

Last month the Anti-Defamation League released a comprehensive report on the current presence of the KKK in the United States. According to the research, there are about 3,000 people who strongly identify with Klan ideology and there are 42 active groups across 33 states. The report also states that many of the chapters have joined forces with each other or with neo-Nazi groups in order to show strength and unity. As a result, groups have beliefs ranging from “traditional” white supremacist beliefs to Christian Identity, “a longstanding racist and anti-Semitic religious sect,” according to the ADL Report.

Several white nationalist groups have obtained permits for yet another rally on August 12, so there will likely be more conflicts like these in the future. With racial tensions heightened since the 2016 election, these feuds over confederate monuments are just one example of the conflicts that continue to arise between white nationalists and more progressive communities.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Protesters Clash with KKK in Charlottesville Over Robert E. Lee Monument appeared first on Law Street.

Clay Higgins, Did You Seriously Think This Was a Good Idea?

Somehow, Louisiana Congressman Clay Higgins thought filming a video for his re-election campaign inside a gas chamber in Auschwitz was a good idea. Higgins is no stranger to controversy: last month he said that the U.S. should hunt down and kill all Islamic terrorism suspects. In the video clip, he talked about the importance of homeland security and making sure the country is safe from “the evils of the world.”

Negative reactions were swift. The Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial and Museum denounced the video, tweeting that the concentration camp is “not a stage.”

Everyone has the right to personal reflections. However, inside a former gas chamber, there should be mournful silence. It’s not a stage. https://t.co/AN5aA1bYEU

— Auschwitz Memorial (@AuschwitzMuseum) July 4, 2017

Some people questioned whether Higgins was aware of the context–the brutal genocide propagated by the Nazis was not an external threat but an internal one. One Twitter user wrote that Auschwitz should also stand “as a reminder of what demonization of people by the state can lead to.” The U.S.-based Anne Frank Center denounced the video in harsh terms, calling it “a global disgrace.” Yesterday, Higgins apologized and said that his intent was to remind people that evil exists, which most of us are all too aware of already. “I have retracted my video…and my sincere apology for any unintended pain is extended,” he said in a statement.

DISGUSTING. @RepClayHiggins your infomercial at Auschwitz a global disgrace. Apologize. Get sensitivity training or a new job. #NeverAgain pic.twitter.com/ddjf7EhwMc

— Anne Frank Center (@AnneFrankCenter) July 5, 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: July 6, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

The murder of a Virginia teenager who went missing after leaving a mosque early Sunday morning will not be investigated as a hate crime, authorities said on Monday.

Fairfax Police arrested 22-year-old Darwin Martinez Torres and charged him with murder in connection with the case. The department tweeted Monday: “We are NOT investigating this murder as a hate crime.” Authorities appear to believe the crime was motivated by road rage.

We are NOT investigating this murder as a hate crime. https://t.co/f6TegmdKMR pic.twitter.com/mlGzrQfiMk

— Fairfax Co. Police (@fairfaxpolice) June 19, 2017

“Nothing suggests that this girl or the group was targeted because of who they are or what they believe,” said Tawny Wright, a Fairfax police spokeswoman.

“Something happened and he became upset,” said Wright in a telephone interview with Reuters. “The group started separating a little bit. The victim happened to be closest to him and then he assaulted her.”

The body of 17-year-old Nabra Hassanen was discovered by police floating in a pond in Sterling, Virginia on Sunday afternoon. According to the medical examiner, she died of blunt force trauma to the head and neck. Hassanen was last seen walking toward the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS) in Sterling with a group of friends at around 3:30 a.m. The girl and her friends were dressed in abayas, a robe-like dress worn by some Muslim women.

According to reports, the group was grabbing food at a nearby IHOP or McDonalds after a Ramadan prayer service when a car pulled up and a man with a baseball bat jumped out and started swinging at the group of girls. All but one of the teens were able to flee back to the mosque, according to Deputy Aleksandra Kowalski, a spokeswoman for the Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office.

There are no words…17yr old #Nabra Hassanen kidnapped, beaten& murdered today in Virginia after attending mosque https://t.co/yEqCp8dzIB pic.twitter.com/RX30XFjGbP

— Miss Myrtle (@MissMyrtle2) June 19, 2017

After an extensive search, a body, believed to be the teen’s, was found about three miles from where the altercation took place.

“What investigators told the father and the mother, he hit her in the head and put her in the car and he threw her in the water,” Nabra’s family friend and spokesperson Abas Sherif told the Associated Press.

Torres was taken into custody as a suspect after police stopped him for driving suspiciously in the search area.

ADAMS is one of the largest mosques in the country, and the murder came as a shock to the local Muslim community as it celebrates the final days of the holy month of Ramadan, in which participants fast from sunrise to sunset.

“We are devastated and heartbroken as our community undergoes and processes this traumatic event. It is a time for us to come together to pray and care for our youth,” the ADAMS Center said in a statement. “It is a time for us to come together to pray and care for our youth.”

Virginia Attorney General Mark R. Herring (D), who visited the center several times during his time as a state senator, said he hopes the community can come together to support one another.

“The ADAMS Center has always welcomed me and so many in Northern Virginia like family,” said Herring. “This unspeakable attack feels like an assault on our entire community. Words fail at a time like this, so we’ll all have to do the best we can to surround them with the love and support they’ve always shown each of us.”

Hassanen’s death comes amidst a surge of anti-Muslim crimes–the very same day a terror attack took place outside a London mosque, where a van plowed into a group of pedestrians. The driver reportedly said “I want to kill Muslims” repeatedly. And last month, two men were stabbed to death on a Portland train while protecting two girls against anti-Muslim threats. And while police are not investigating the Virginia teen’s death as a hate crime, Mahmoud Hassanen, Nabra’s father, believes that’s exactly what it was.

Nabra was a 17 year old black Muslim girl. it was a hate crime. it is terrorism. & normalizing it will only result in more ppl getting hurt. https://t.co/lpZuogXs6F

— nañi (@pettyblackgirI) June 19, 2017

A crowdfunding campaign for the girl’s family has already raised more than $180,000. The family has also raised over $43,000 towards funeral arrangements through a GoFundMe campaign.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Murder of Muslim Teenager Not Being Investigated as Hate Crime appeared first on Law Street.

Trump Appears to Have a Fake News Problem

It appears that President Donald Trump doesn’t check the news himself but largely relies on what his staff members give him. The problem has become significant enough for White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus to issue a warning during a senior staff meeting, telling people to stop putting things on Trump’s desk. Several times, his staff has reportedly left news stories on his desk that are completely false, such as a 1970’s “article” about a coming ice age, and one from fake news website GotNews.com that claimed deputy chief of staff Katie Walsh was the one leaking information from the White House.

Climate change is an existential threat and Trump’s 2nd most senior Nat Sec aide slips him fake news covers to minimize it. Let that sink in

— Ben Rhodes (@brhodes) May 15, 2017

According to administration officials, this practice can have tremendous consequences due to the president’s temper and mood. The wrong story can alter his agenda or lead to a tantrum. However, it seems like staff members think it’s worth the risk, as they know they can easily sway Trump’s opinion.

Priebus warns WH staff to stop slipping Trump Internet hoaxes, because he believes they’re real. https://t.co/lh4XfVBE69

— Steve Silberman (@stevesilberman) May 15, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 15, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

When the city of New Orleans finally began the process of taking down its pro-Confederate monuments this week, it faced some opposition. One of the more high-profile critics of the decision was Virginia’s Republican gubernatorial candidate Corey Stewart.

Stewart attracted attention on the internet a few days ago for his tweet-storm defending preservation of the monuments. But there was one controversial tweet in particular that stood out.

Nothing is worse than a Yankee telling a Southerner that his monuments don't matter.

— Corey Stewart (@CoreyStewartVA) April 25, 2017

Twitter users quickly reminded Stewart that he is not from the South (he is a Minnesota native), and that a lot of things are actually worse than “a Yankee telling a Southerner that his monuments don’t matter.”

You are from Minnesota. https://t.co/45pEgVGmC2

— Dave Weigel (@daveweigel) April 25, 2017

@CoreyStewartVA Like, literally, nothing? Nothing is worse?

— John Legend (@johnlegend) April 25, 2017

you know what was worse? Slavery https://t.co/1ACEuYjUh9

— Wesley Lowery (@WesleyLowery) April 25, 2017

1. Slavery
2. Lynchings
3. Black women raped + their rapists set free
4. Jim Crow
5. Workplace discrimination
6. Housing discrimination https://t.co/aTgOxwXEqd

— Yashar (@yashar) April 25, 2017

Stewart, who is currently a chairman for the Board of Supervisors in Prince Williams County, Virginia, announced his bid for governor of the state in April 2016 (the primary elections will take place this June). Since then, he has become a vocal advocate for honoring Confederate landmarks, and has integrated the issue heavily into his campaign. In February, he organized protests in Charlottesville, Virginia against the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue. Earlier this month, he attended a Civil War-themed “Old South Ball.”

For many, Confederate symbols (like the flag) will always represent white supremacy because of their ties to the southern states that seceded from the U.S. and defended slavery during the Civil War. Stewart, on the other hand, has said that his position on the issue is not about the Confederate flag, but about “rampant, uncontrolled political correctness that is shaming Virginians who are simply trying to honor their ancestors, their ancestry, their heritage.”

If that anti-political correctness sentiment sounds familiar to you, it’s probably because you’ve heard similar things from President Donald Trump while he was on the campaign trail. Stewart supported Trump during the presidential election and served as the chair of Trump’s campaign in Virginia, until he was fired for orchestrating an unauthorized protest against anti-Trump Republicans outside the Republican National Convention headquarters.

Now, his commitment to protecting Confederate heritage, and combating what he calls “historical vandalism,” could hurt him in his run. Stewart recently lost the support of Prince William County’s sheriff, who switched his endorsement to back Stewart’s Republican opponent Ed Gillespie. Sheriff Glendell Hill told the Washington Post that Stewart’s views on “all that Confederate stuff” were too divisive. Four GOP supervisors who serve on the county board with Stewart also chose to endorse Gillespie.

Like Trump, Stewart is known for being outspoken on the internet. In March, he answered questions on a Reddit thread known as an “Ask Me Anything,” or AMA. At one point in the AMA, Stewart referred to Gillespie as a “cuckservative,” a term coined by the alt-right movement to disparage Republicans who are too moderate. In the same question-and-answer session on the site, he called for deportation of “criminal illegal aliens,” called globalists “BAD people” (even though he has worked as an international trade attorney).

Stewart has also tried to cover up negative information about himself–like low ratings about his claims on the fact-checker Politifact, and his loss in the 2016 race for lieutenant governor–by editing his own Wikipedia page.

From the establishment of sanctuary cities to the legalization of marijuana, a lot of resistance to the Trump Administration and its policies happens on local and state levels. Virginia’s current governor, Democrat Terry McAuliffe, has opposed the president’s immigration order while Democratic candidates for governor like Tom Perriello and Ralph Northam have both criticized and vowed to push back against the federal government. But a win for Stewart could change that.

However, a recent Quinnipiac University poll showed Gillespie–who voted for Trump, but whose support of the president has been lukewarm in comparison to Stewart’s–leading with 28 percent, while Stewart is currently falling behind at 12 percent. According to the same poll, in the general election both Perriello and Northham would hold double-digit leads over Gillespie.

Not to mention, Trump’s politics haven’t been very popular in Virginia–he pulled his campaign out of the state weeks before the election, a move that was criticized by Stewart.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who is Corey Stewart, the Pro-Confederate Virginia Gubernatorial Candidate? appeared first on Law Street.

Virginia is for lovers–and for robots.

State legislators recently passed a law allowing autonomous robots to rove sidewalks, a measure supported by multiple delivery services that could use the gadgets to drop off food, groceries, and other goods. It goes into effect on July 1.

Virginia is the first state to pass a law allowing robots to deliver straight to your door https://t.co/p6P1IRJzMB pic.twitter.com/tQ2YJcBW9D

— Recode (@Recode) March 1, 2017

Don’t make a big order or expect it to get to you anytime soon, however. The robots will not be allowed to move faster than 10 miles per hour or weigh more than 50 pounds, and must be monitored by a person. They cannot travel on the road either, unless they are on a crosswalk.

An Estonian company called Starship Technologies, which has already built and started testing robots, joined Virginia politicians Ron Villanueva, a member of Virginia’s House of Delegates, and Bill DeSteph, a state senator, to draft the bill. Amazon and Grubhub also wrote to lawmakers in support of the legislation.

DeSteph said last month that “passage of the bill in the Senate demonstrates Virginia’s commitment to innovation and the Commonwealth’s willingness to encourage the use of unmanned systems.”

Local governments throughout the state will be permitted to further regulate the robots as they see fit.

The machines could soon be rolling across the country, as politicians in Idaho and Florida push to bring the technology to their respective states.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Special Delivery for Residents of Virginia, Thanks to New Robot Law appeared first on Law Street.

A Virginia school district has temporarily banned two classic novels, “To Kill A Mockingbird” and “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” after a parent raised concerns over the racial slurs presented in each book.

Accomack County Public Schools Superintendent Warren Holland confirmed that the two books had been banned to WAVY-TV as a result of a student’s mother complaining at a school board meeting in November. The mother claimed that her son, who is biracial, was deeply troubled by the racial slurs he had to read in the books.

These books are not strangers to challenges and banning by school systems. According to the American Library Association, the two are frequently banned and challenged young adult reading. Racial slurs occur 219 times in Mark Twain’s “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” and 48 times in Harper Lee’s “To Kill A Mockingbird.”

“So what are we teaching our children?” the parent asked  during the meeting. “We’re validating that these words are acceptable, and they are not acceptable by any means.”

Claire Fallon from the The Huffington Post expressed concerns over the ban, writing

Shielding citizens, from youth through adulthood, from the full extent of wrongs perpetrated by Americans and the U.S. government prevents the understanding that could allow for real problem-solving. For example, last year, a survey found that nearly half of Americans don’t believe that the Civil War was primarily motivated by Southerners’ desire to keep slavery, despite a historical consensus that it was. Most Americans don’t support reparations ― or even apologizing for slavery ― and this ignorance about the severity and willfulness of the nation’s past crimes is surely a factor.

Some on social media saw this as a slippery slope.

Banning classic lit. isn’t the answer people. I have heard more offensive crap in rap music. https://t.co/3JQGP3w0F5

— BethM (@BethMcCall84) December 2, 2016

POLL: Should Accomack County Public Schools ban “To Kill A Mockingbird” & Huck Finn? The novels are currently suspended due to racial slurs.

— Katie Collett (@KatieCollettTV) December 1, 2016

Other parents from Accomack County voiced their concerns over the bans.

“Everybody’s read it… it didn’t change a difference in my views at all,” one parent Catherine Glaser told WAVY-TV. “I’d like my son to read those books… my daughter’s mixed, and I don’t have a problem with it, I love those books.”

Nothing is certain, however. The complaint was filed as “a request for reconsideration of learning resources.” The request will go before a committee made up of different school members, such as a principal, librarian, teacher, and parent; and they will make a recommendation to Holland.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Virginia School District Bans Two American Classics over Racial Slurs appeared first on Law Street.

In a lot of ways, 2016 was the year in which the fight over transgender individuals’ access to the bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity came to the forefront. From North Carolina’s “bathroom bill” that was passed in March, to the directive issued by the Obama Administration in August that instructed all public schools to allow students to use the bathroom that corresponds to their gender identity, it’s been a newsworthy topic for the year. Now, to kick off 2017, SCOTUS will be weighing in on a Virginia case that could provide more clarity on the issue.

Gavin Grimm, who attends high school in Virginia’s Gloucester County, is transgender. He began to take hormones and grow facial hair, and started to use the men’s bathroom early in his high school career. But some parents complained, and the school board decried that students would have to use the bathroom that corresponded to their “biological gender.” So, Grimm sued the school board over the decision. The case has now made it all the way to the Supreme Court, after a federal appeals court ruled earlier this year in favor of Grimm. While the court is deciding, Grimm will still have to abide by the school board’s decision.

Right now, the Supreme Court still only has eight members, as no one has filled the void left by Justice Antonin Scalia’s death. Hopefully a new member will be confirmed by the time the case is actually heard, although in the case of a 4-4 split the lower court’s decision in favor of Grimm would remain.

Grimm wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post in which he explained the humiliating and inhumane experiences he has had at the hands of the school’s policies. He describes how he has had to go off school grounds to use the restroom at some points and how it has been suggested that he use the single stall unisex restroom “so that no one else would have their privacy invaded by using the same restroom as me.” But Grimm also addresses the issue with a sense of hope, saying:

I did not choose to announce to the news media that I am transgender. My school board made that decision for me. But now that I am visible, I want to use my position to help the country see transgender people like me as real people just living our lives. We are not perverse. We are not broken. We are not sick. We are not freaks. We cannot change who we are. Our gender identities are as innate as anyone else’s.

I hope the justices of the Supreme Court can see me and the rest of the transgender community for who we are — just people — and rule accordingly.

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 SCOTUS to Weigh in on Transgender Bathroom Access appeared first on Law Street.

Another college is in the news, accused of mishandling a rape case. A female student at Old Dominion University who reported that she was raped in her own dorm room says she was denied a medical exam until after campus police had interrogated her for eight hours. The assault took place in October 2014 at the Old Dominion University campus in Virginia. Late Wednesday, the woman’s lawyer, Laura Dunn, filed a complaint against the university, accusing the school of mishandling the case and violating federal law.

The woman, who was not named in the complaint obtained by the Associated Press, wrote that she booked an appointment at a local medical center to get an exam after she was assaulted. But when she told campus police about what happened, officers wouldn’t let her leave. They took her to their department where they denied her food, water, and bathroom breaks. They interrogated her for eight hours, asking questions like “do you like rough sex?” and saying, “I’m just trying to find the crime here,” implying that it was her own fault that she was raped.

My alma mater is out here treating rape victims like criminals. And y’all wonder why people don’t come forward. #ODU https://t.co/SJT4MsCZ33

— Kris (@thatkblife) October 14, 2016

The way the campus police treated the student caused her stress and anxiety disorders. “After the entire day of being victimized by your police department, I was left feeling paranoid and scared as if I was the criminal,” she wrote in a personal statement attached to the complaint. The man, who was not a student at the university, was never charged with a crime.

Said it before and I’ll say it again, college “police departments” should be banned. https://t.co/eWseSI028R

— Bryan Beal (@bryanrbeal) October 14, 2016

The complaint accuses the school of violating federal law by not informing the woman of the importance of preserving evidence by getting a forensic exam right away–which she wanted to do, but wasn’t allowed–and not letting her know that she had the right to not report the incident to police until after being examined. She was also not informed that she could seek a protective order against the man, what her counseling options were, or the possibility to change her living situation. She was not even allowed to move out from the dorm where the assault took place until after getting a diagnosis from a psychologist. The school also failed to add the assault to the school’s “crime log” until after a reporter asked about it.

“This validated to me that Old Dominion University never took my sexual assault seriously and does not care for me as one of their students,” she wrote.

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 Old Dominion Student Who Reported Rape Was Interrogated for 8 Hours appeared first on Law Street.

Donald Trump’s campaign announced its decision to pull its field operation out of Virginia to focus on battlegrounds critical to his chances in November.

The news, which broke from Trump’s New York headquarters Wednesday night, came as a surprise to Republican Party members in the state. Two staffers directly involved in the GOP’s efforts in Virginia confirmed the decision to NBC News.

Clinton currently leads Trump by 7.5 points, according to a RealClearPolitics average of state polls. The move effectively concedes the state, and its 13 electoral votes, to Clinton and her Vice-Presidential candidate, former Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine.

Earlier in the week, Trump fired his Virginia state co-chairman, Corey Stewart, after Stewart participated in a protest in front of the Republican National Committee headquarters. The former state director still supports the campaign that fired him.

Stewart, a Prince William County Commissioner, posted a plea on his Facebook urging the campaign to not pull out of Virginia. Stewart wrote:

Thousands of dedicated volunteers have spent millions of hours knocking on doors, making phone calls and raising money for Mr. Trump over the past 15 months. Virginia is winnable. An aggressive ad campaign–in combination with the efforts of these volunteers–will produce results. Pulling out now would be a betrayal to these volunteers.

Over the past decade, Virginia has become increasingly favorable terrain for Democrats. President Barack Obama won the state twice after decades of Republican dominance–by six points in 2008 and four points in 2012.

“The move to pull out of Virginia shows Trump is ‘running essentially a four state campaign,’ with the focus now shifting to battlegrounds critical to his chances in November: Pennsylvania, Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio,” NBC reported after receiving a tip from a source with knowledge of the decision.

Trump has 25 days left in the election cycle to turn battleground states in his favor. The Republican nominee is currently falling behind Clinton in national polls.

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump’s Campaign Pulls Out of Virginia appeared first on Law Street.

The commonwealth of Virginia recently unveiled a new tourism campaign, specifically aimed at attracting LGBT travelers. Given that some states (looking at you, North Carolina and Mississippi) have been the given travel advisories from other countries warning LGBT travelers, it makes sense that one state is trying to appeal to that niche of the tourism market.

Virginia is playing off its longstanding slogan–“Virginia is for Lovers”–with “Virginia is for all Lovers.”

New “Virginia is for all Lovers” campaign promotes LGBT tourism https://t.co/hQZq3b0SAm pic.twitter.com/7zjbAIXcgf

— Arlington News (@ARLnowDOTcom) September 23, 2016

The new travel site reads:

We hope you’ll use Virginia.org/lgbt to explore our LGBT-friendly lodging, dining, history, shopping, attractions, events and outdoor experiences statewide. Our website also includes meeting spaces, itineraries, and all the resources you need to plan your dream wedding or honeymoon.

Our listings have been self-designated by Virginia business owners and hosts as LGBT-friendly. New listings are being added every day, so please return often to find the most authentic, safe and welcoming Virginia experiences for your family and friends.

The tourism campaign will also include merchandise, and will consistently reevaluate and build on the listings of LGBT-friendly destinations and venues. The new tourism plan is the result of an LGBT tourism task force created by Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe almost two years ago.

McAuliffe stated:

Virginia is proud to be an open and welcoming destination for every visitor attracted by our scenic mountains and beaches, as well as our world-renowned restaurants, wineries and breweries.

I am pleased the Virginia Tourism Corporation has created this landing page to connect travelers with inclusive, LGBT-friendly establishments across the Commonwealth. Virginia is truly for lovers, and we hope you have an unforgettable experience visiting the greatest state in the greatest nation on Earth!

According to the Richmond Times Dispatch, Virginia made $23 million in tourism in 2015, and 5 percent of the visitors identified as LGBT. With the new campaign, Virginia may soon see that number rise.

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 Virginia Tourism Starts Marketing to LGBT Travelers appeared first on Law Street.

Alec Siegel

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

The post Virginia Governor Doubles Down on Effort to Restore Voting Rights to Felons appeared first on Law Street.

Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe received fierce opposition from Virginia republicans when he released an executive order in late April to restore voting rights to over 200,000 ex-felons. McAuliffe’s opponents argued that he was overstepping his restoration powers in his capacity as governor and that he only had the power to restore voting rights on a case-by-case basis. On July 22, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled that he had indeed overstepped his constitutional powers in a 4-3 decision, shooting down his blanket restoration move. 

When he first took up the fight to restore voting rights for released felons, McAuliffe—who has historically been engaged in national democratic politics as former Chairman of the Democratic National Committee and co-chairman of Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign—was criticized for using restoration as a political tool. With one in five adult African-Americans being disenfranchised in Virginia, republican opponents argued that McAuliffe was trying to “unlock” the minority vote in the wake of the 2016 presidential election.

McAuliffe starkly denies this. Rather, he claims that any citizen who has completed the full term of their sentence shouldn’t be disenfranchised. McAuliffe aims to relieve some of the ex-felons’ burden by restoring voting rights, as disenfranchisement is one of the most significant collateral consequences facing prison releasees.

While the Howell v. McAuliffe decision is certainly a setback, McAuliffe isn’t done with his battle for voting rights quite yet. In a statement released following the July 22 decision McAuliffe promised that he will still pursue restoration. The governor will individually sign 13,000 restoration orders this month and will not stop signing restoration orders until all affected individuals reclaim their right to vote.

Virginia is one of less than ten states that still disenfranchises felons who have completed all terms of their sentence, and is one of less than five states where over 20 percent of African-American adults are disenfranchised. Thus felon disenfranchisement—in addition to the disproportionate incarceration of African-Americans—has the innately undemocratic effect of suppressing minority votes and minority voices.

McAuliffe holds that his action is unpartisan, that he is acting to alleviate the intense injustices that have plagued Virginia’s past. He holds that voting rights ensure certain citizens aren’t being unfairly targeted and excluded from the democratic process.

During his tenure, McAuliffe has championed many issues of inequality. Such instances include initiating preschool programs in impoverished schools/communities, vetoing multiple pieces of legislation aiming to restrict abortion access, and more. The closing sentiment of his statement on the voting rights case sums up the progressive governor’s spirit: “The struggle for civil rights has always been a long and difficult one, but the fight goes on.”

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Virginia Governor Wages Fierce Fight for Voting Rights appeared first on Law Street.

Hillary Clinton announced her running mate on Friday, going with a safe candidate who is seasoned with experience in almost every level of government and thankfully lacks a scandalous background. Despite the fact that Tim Kaine is a white, Catholic male and an insider to politics, he can do a few things that the average politician cannot: he officiates weddings, plays the harmonica, and speaks fluent Spanish.

Kaine started his political career as a city councilman in Richmond, Virginia, where he later served as mayor. He was elected Governor of Virginia in 2006, and became a senator in 2012. He also served as chairman of the Democratic National Convention during the first years of the Obama administration. He currently serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Armed Services Committee.

Kaine has been in politics for 22 years and knows a thing or two about elections, except for one thing: losing. Kaine has never lost an election during his tenure in government. Another fun fact about the next possible vice president? He is the first senator to give an entire speech on the Senate floor in a language other than English (he recited a speech entirely in Spanish in 2013).

Critics have called Kaine boring, but maybe that’s what Clinton needs to get her the presidency in November. On the big issues dominating this election, where does he stand?

Gun Control

Kaine has a personal connection with the push for stricter gun laws— he was the governor of Virginia when the Virginia Tech shooting happened, and at the time, it was the most deadly mass shooting in history. He described it as the worst day of his life:

That was the worst day of my life, and it will always be the worst day of my life — comforting the families of the victims, talking to the first responders who went into a classroom where bodies littered the floor and who heard in the pockets of deceased students and professors cell phones ringing as parents who had seen it on the news were calling their kids, just knowing they were at Virginia Tech to ask them if they were all right — calls that would never be answered.

Although a proponent of the second amendment and a gun owner himself, Kaine said he “supports common sense legislation,” and would like to see expanded background checks, restrictions on assault-style weapons, and expansion for mental health services, according to a statement on his website.

“Hillary and I will not rest…until we get universal background checks and close loopholes.” —@TimKaine on preventing gun violence

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) July 23, 2016

Women’s Reproductive Rights

Kaine is a pretty fervent Catholic, but when it comes to abortion rights, he believes it’s a personal matter, not a political one. He has an impressive 100 percent pro-choice voting record on abortion issues in the Senate, which garners respect from groups like Planned Parenthood and National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws.

Although Kaine does not personally agree with abortions, he said, “I deeply believe, and not just as a matter of politics, but even as a matter of morality, that matters about reproduction and intimacy and relationships and contraception are in the personal realm. They’re moral decisions for individuals to make for themselves. And the last thing we need is government intruding into those personal decisions.”

In August 2015 he voted against defunding Planned Parenthood, saying that for many women, “Planned Parenthood health centers are their only source of high quality health care.”

Planned Parenthood provides many critical, preventative services. Here’s just some #StandWithPP pic.twitter.com/TmPRd7GJ1X

— Senator Tim Kaine (@timkaine) December 2, 2015

Education 

Kaine was critical of No Child Left Behind from the get-go. When he was governor of Virginia in 2006, he said the education act was “wreaking havoc on local school districts.” He has scathed NCLB for putting so much pressure and focus on standardized testing.

The new act that replaced NCLB in December 2015, Every Child Succeeds, has parts that Kaine wrote that focused on promoting career and technical education.

Authorization of Military Force

Kaine is the father of a Marine, so creating policy that recognizes that soldiers put their lives at risk in order to protect national security is important to him. That’s why he has pushed for the Obama administration to get re-authorization from Congress in order to fight terrorist groups like ISIS. In September 2014, Kaine called on President Obama to seek authorization on the Senate floor:

During a time of war, we ask our troops to give their best even to the point of sacrificing their own lives. When compared against that, how much of a sacrifice is it for a President to engage in a possibly contentious debate with Congress about whether military action is a good idea? How much of a sacrifice is it for a member of Congress to debate and vote about whether military action is a good idea? While Congressional members face the political costs of debate on military action, our service members bear the human costs of those decisions. And if we choose to avoid debate, avoid accountability, avoid a hard decision how can we demand that our military willingly sacrifice their very lives?

Inez Nicholson

Inez is an editorial intern at Law Street from Raleigh, NC. She will be a junior at North Carolina State University and is studying political science and communication media. When she’s not in the newsroom, you can find her in the weight room. Contact Inez at INicholson@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Where Does Tim Kaine Stand on the Issues? appeared first on Law Street.

Getting your driver’s license revoked for unpaid fees is undoubtedly annoying, but is it actually unconstitutional? A lawsuit against the Virginia DMV is challenging the policy, claiming that it is unfair to those without the ability to pay.

The class action suit alleges that revoking a person’s driver’s license is a violation of the protections in the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution. The defendants accuse the policy of being an “unconstitutional scheme that unfairly punishes them for being poor.” Without a license, a person would legally be unable to drive to work, school, or fulfill other necessary obligations, making the license revocation more than just an inconvenience.

Drivers whose licenses have been suspended or revoked due to unpaid court fines face a $145 reinstatement fee from the Virginia DMV. To put that in some perspective, that would be equivalent to about 20 hours of wages for someone working at Virginia’s minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. While wealthier people would have no problem paying off the fine and getting off scot-free, it could be a financial burden to anyone living paycheck-to-paycheck.

The Legal Aid Justice Center (LAJC), which filed the suit on behalf of the plaintiffs, also recently released a full report on this issue, highlighting the ways in which the state’s repayment plans for unpaid fines hurt lower-income families. The report’s findings indicated that the Virginia DMV does not take into account a person’s financial situation before making the decision to suspend a license.

The plaintiffs in this suit hope to prove that these fines are one of the many injustices that come with being poor in America. People with lower incomes generally find it harder to obtain loans, build and maintain credit scores, and are charged fines for things such as negative bank balances. Court fees and fines also disproportionately affect lower-income people, as they are more likely to go through the court system. Essentially, those with lower incomes are penalized for being poor, while wealthier people are often able to avoid such fees, despite their ability to pay.

LAJC is trying to advocate that the policy be changed to take into account one’s income level before revoking or suspending a license. The suit claims that currently 940,ooo people in the state have suspended licenses due to unpaid fees (over 10 percent of the state’s population of 8.3 million), meaning that a policy change could have a significant impact on Virginia’s citizens.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Is It Unconstitutional to Take Away Someone’s License for Unpaid Fines? appeared first on Law Street.

Before he extolled Hillary Clinton’s virtues and qualifications, Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) ripped into Donald Trump. He presented the audience–gathered in the gymnasium of Northern Virginia Community College for a rally–with a three-part quiz: “Do you want a ‘you’re fired’ president, or a ‘you’re hired’ president?”; “Do you want a trash talking president, or a bridge building president?”; “Do you want a ‘me first’ president or a ‘kids and families first’ president?”

If the couple hundred strong audience’s reaction was any indication, the latter–clearly Clinton–was the unanimous choice. Thursday’s rally was an audition of sorts for Kaine, a presumed favorite as Clinton’s running mate. And perhaps as a response to those who fear he is too bland, too safe, too vanilla for the job, Kaine grew red in the face while animating his reservations about Trump and his reverence for Clinton.

“‘Ready for Hillary’ in Español is ‘estamos listos para Hillary,'” said Kaine, a fluent Spanish speaker who has spent time in Honduras as a minister. “The word ‘ready’ in Spanish is a little bit different than the word ‘ready’ in English…[In Honduras] the best compliment you could receive is to say that you are ‘listo’ because it means you’re well prepared, ready to get on the battlefield. You’re ready to fight.” At this, the crowd erupted in chants of “Hillary, Hillary.”

When it was Clinton’s turn to speak, Trump took a backseat to policy points (she still managed to land a few jabs: “this would be a good reality show, it’s just so serious”). The former secretary of state and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee evoked the popular play “Hamilton”–which, she said, she has seen three time–and the historical context it explores. America’s founding fathers “did not all agree,” she said. “They didn’t even all like each other. But here’s what they did–they worked together, and they set the most outrageous, unbelievable goal.” Their achievement, she said, was transforming disparate colonies “into a nation that could stand with the rest of the world.”

Thousands wait in over ninety degree heat. Most were turned away.

And with that, Clinton presented America’s choice as the most consequential of her lifetime, perhaps of the country’s lifetime: “We are asked whether we want to go forward into our future with confidence, optimism and hope, or whether we give in to bigotry and bluster and bullying.” She added: “Coal country, Indian country, inner city neighborhoods. I want us all to rise together.” But after the rally, on a small lawn outside the gymnasium, a scene emblematic of America’s current political gridlock unfolded.

“As illustrated recently by what happened over the email scandal, [the Clintons] have not been honest or law abiding citizens,” Laurie Kirby, who with her husband Ron braved over ninety degree heat and a staggering sun, told Law Street. The Kirbys stood with a giant American flag and signs opposing Clinton as “unlawful” and “untrustworthy.” As the soft-spoken couple shakily expressed their support for Trump (“I don’t necessarily agree with every statement that comes out of his mouth,” said Laurie), Clinton supporters streamed past, shaking their heads, shouting “stronger together!” and booing the couple.

A small circle began to form: the Kirbys conversed with a stocky, boisterous man in sunglasses, M.T. Two young women joined in. Both were turned away from the rally, they told Law Street, because the gym had reached capacity. “Our reservation apparently wasn’t good enough,” said A.D. (who declined to provide her full name), a first-generation Somalian, and a rising sophomore at Northern Virginia Community College. A.D. and her friend I.K. (who also requested only her initials be used) came as “moderates,” open to hear what Clinton had to say.

As they discussed the “false promises” of Bernie Sanders and the “elitism” of Clinton, a woman–decked in Clinton gear and clutching a “stronger together” sign–shouted at the Kirbys: “[Hillary] is not a liar” and “not crooked.” “I’m a Hillary supporter all the way, thank you,” she said, joining the circle chat. While the debate over Clinton’s character raged on, M.T. laughed. “It’s a very great conversation, it’s great dialogue,” he said. “Only in America!” He grew serious and shook his head as the tone around him grew testy, and personal attacks began to fly. “Just because you have different political views doesn’t mean people have to shame each other,” he said.

Alec Siegel

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

The post At Virginia Rally, Tim Kaine Rips Trump, Praises “Ready” Clinton appeared first on Law Street.

The George Mason University School of Law, located just outside of Washington, DC, in Arlington, Virginia, is getting a new name. After a series of donations totaling $30 million, the school will be renamed after the late, great Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. The new full name of the school will be the Antonin Scalia School of Law at George Mason University.

The $30 million total in donations was the largest fundraising haul in the school’s history. An anonymous donor gave a staggering $20 million, and the Charles Koch Foundation donated $10 million. The Board of Visitors approved renaming the law school to honor Antonin Scalia’s recent passing–the $20 million donation was contingent on that name change.  By July, the name change will be complete, including signs and logos.

The money will go to funding three new scholarships at the law school. According to Bloomberg:

One, called the Antonin Scalia Scholarship, will award students with top academic credentials. Another, the A. Linwood Holton, Jr. Leadership Scholarship, will award students who have overcome barriers to academic success, demonstrated outstanding leadership qualities, or who have helped others overcome discrimination in any facet of life. The third, the F.A. Hayek Law, Legislation and Liberty Scholarship, will award students who have demonstrated interest in studying the application of economic principles to the law.

George Mason’s Law School does have a conservative lean, rendering the new Scalia name particularly appropriate–many of its professors are known for being libertarian.

Scalia’s colleague, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg lent her support for the renaming, stating:

Justice Scalia was a law teacher, public servant, legal commentator, and jurist nonpareil. As a colleague who held him in highest esteem and great affection, I miss his bright company and the stimulus he provided, his opinions ever challenging me to meet his best efforts with my own. It is a tribute altogether fitting that George Mason University’s law school will bear his name. May the funds for scholarships, faculty growth, and curricular development aid the Antonin Scalia School of Law to achieve the excellence characteristic of Justice Scalia, grand master in life and law.

If George Mason Law is looking to climb up in various law school rankings and attract more students–offering these scholarships is certainly a solid start.

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 George Mason University School of Law to Be Renamed After Justice Antonin Scalia appeared first on Law Street.

The Virginia House of Delegates passed a bill Tuesday to grant protections for private businesses holding religious views that refuse service to gay and transgender individuals, along with individuals who have sex outside of marriage.

But House Bill 773, titled the Government Non-Discrimination Act, does exactly the opposite of its intended purpose, at least depending on who you are talking to. 

The bill states,

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a government entity shall not take any discriminatory action against a person, in whole or in part, on the basis that such person believes, speaks, or acts in accordance with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction that (i) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, (ii) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage, or (iii) the male sex and the term “man” and the female sex and the term “woman” refer to an individual’s biological sex as determined at birth.

Under this act, state agencies are denied the ability to reduce or cancel funding, contracts, and entitlements; alter tax treatment, or deny other benefits based on beliefs held by private entities such as believing marriage is solely between a man and a woman, sex is only for marriage, and that the terms man and woman are only based on biological sex.

If a company holds these views but doesn’t act on them, then it is not seen as as much of an issue. Saying, “I don’t agree with your lifestyle but we are still going to give you our services” is not as bad as “We are not going to serve you because you are X,Y, or Z.” The problem lies in that this act enables companies to openly discriminate and refuse service to specific groups of people and be completely protected from punishment from the government. Therefore, it seems that something aimed to be nondiscriminatory to one group is completely discriminatory to another.

The bill’s patron–Del. C. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah, said that this bill is another way to protect businesses from the movement to push religion out of the public life, according to the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Virginia Nondiscrimination Bill Discriminates, Passes House of Delegates appeared first on Law Street.

The top stories published at Law Street last week included a look at Kesha’s contract woes, an innovative seed storage program, and a rundown of the 2015 election results. ICYMI, here are the top stories from Law Street last week:

#1 Sony Reportedly Refuses to Let Kesha Record New Music Without Her Alleged Rapist

If you were wondering why pop star Kesha hasn’t put out any new music since being featured on Pitbull’s 2013 smash hit “Timber” there’s an unsettling reason. The singer has put her career on the line in an attempt to free herself from being forced to work with producer Dr. Luke, who she says sexually and emotionally abused her for ten years. Read the full story here.

#2 Seeds of Hope: Inside the Doomsday Seed Vault

October 19 marked the first time in history that the Svalbard Global Seed Vault wasopened up for a withdrawal. Often referred to as the “doomsday vault,” the seed vault was built to serve as a backstop for plant extinction, storing seeds for individual countries to ensure that plant diversity is not lost in a catastrophe. While weather disasters and global warming pose significant threats to the future of agriculture, the recent withdrawal was the result of the war in Syria. Researchers sought additional seeds as the multi-year war significantly reduced their supply of drought-resistant wheat. The idea of a last-resort vault full of the world’s seeds may surprise many, but the planning and implementation of the world’s seed bank have been a long and thought-out process. Read the full story here.

#3 The Results are in: Election Day 2015

A breakdown of the results of some of the most important races to watch, including the Virginia Senate, San Francisco’s Airbnb regulations, the Kentucky Governor’s race, Ohio’s marijuana initiative, and Houston’s equal rights ordinance. Read the full story here.

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 ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Yesterday, I wrote a breakdown of some of the top races to watch on election day 2015. Here are the results of these contentious votes:

Virginia’s General Assembly

Why we should have watched it: With just a few key races promising to decide the lean of the state Senate overall, and Governor Terry McAuliffe pushing hard for a Democratic Senate, it was certainly a race to watch. Given that Virginia promises to be a hotly contested swing state in 2016, seeing just how purple the state has become is always interesting.

What happened: The GOP retained control of the state senate, and therefore the General Assembly as a whole. This leaves McAuliffe still without allies, and may indicate an uphill battle for whoever ends up as the Democratic nominee for 2016.

San Francisco’s Airbnb Vote

Why we should have watched it: San Francisco voters were offered a sort of referendum on Airbnb’s model of short-term rentals. Proposition F promised to levy some serious restrictions on the company. Add to that Airbnb’s $8 million dollar investment in fighting against the proposition, and a series of weird ads that certainly turned San Francisco voters off, and it became a tense race from start to finish.

What happened: Airbnb’s massive investment paid off, as voters rejected Proposition F. So, Airbnb will continue business as usual in the city where it is headquartered, but it was still a very expensive fight. As other cities may try to create similar restrictions, Airbnb might not want to make spending that kind of cash a precedent.

Kentucky Gubernatorial Race

Why we should have watched it: The Democratic Attorney General Jack Conway faced off against tea party candidate and businessman Matt Bevin. This was an incredibly hotly contested race; recent polls actually showed Conway in the lead. Bevin last year tried to primary Mitch McConnell, and was almost successful, and then beat a more establishment Republican for the Republican gubernatorial nomination.

What happened: Bevin won, marking the first time in a while that a Republican has taken the governorship in Kentucky. Moreover, he showed that tea party wins aren’t a thing of the past. His successful rallying against the establishment may indicate who Kentucky will vote for in 2016.

Ohio Marijuana Initiative

Why we should have watched it: There were a lot of weird aspects to Ohio’s attempt to legalize marijuana. For one, it would have been the first state to legalize recreational marijuana having not first legalized medical marijuana. Moreover, there were concerns of a “marijuana oligopoly,” given that only 10 facilities backed by a group of investors would receive licenses to grow it. So, some that rallied against it were more fighting against the threat of a restricted market than the legalization of weed itself.

What happened: The initiative failed, so weed won’t be legalized in Ohio. However, it’s unclear whether it was rejected because of the oligopoly fears, or because Ohioans actually didn’t want to legalize weed. If it’s the former, we should expect to see another measure up for vote soon that allows a wider market.

The Houston Equal Rights Ordinance

Why we should have watched it: The city of Houston, Texas voted on an equal rights ordinance that would have included protections for the LGBTQ community, including on the basis of gender identity. However, the entire thing became a nasty firefight when groups that opposed the ordinance began suggesting that it would allow predators to enter women’s bathrooms.

What happened: The fear-mongering paid off, and the ordinance didn’t pass. The opponents focused on one incorrect assumption, and were successful. Although the U.S. is doing a little better on LGBTQ rights in the wake of Obergefell, the resounding defeat of the ordinance in a relatively liberal city run by Annise Parker, one of the most high profile openly gay mayors in the United States, isn’t a great sign.

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 Results are in: Election Day 2015 appeared first on Law Street.

Today is election day in the U.S., and despite the fact that we’re all already preoccupied with the 2016 elections, there are some interesting races to watch this year as well. From mayoral elections to ballot initiatives, the 2015 elections certainly shouldn’t be ignored. Check out the top five most noteworthy races that are drawing eyes to this year’s polling places.

Virginia’s General Assembly

Today, the citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia will vote for their 140 members of the General Assembly. While the House of Delegates is almost certain to remain under Republican control, the state Senate is up for grabs, with just a few hotly-contested races likely to decide which party dominates. Virginia’s governor, Terry McAuliffe, is a Democrat, so having a Democratically-controlled Senate would give him more leverage to accomplish his goals in the state. Given Virginia’s cemented status as a swing state, state-level politics may offer an interesting look at which way it could lean in 2016.

San Francisco’s Airbnb Vote

The city of San Francisco, ironically the home of Airbnb, is voting today on Proposition F, which would put some serious restrictions on Airbnb and other short-term rental companies. Airbnb has fought against the proposed restrictions tooth and nail, spending upwards of $8 million. But, Airbnb also pissed off San Franciscans last week with a series of condescending ads that the company later took down and apologized for.

Airbnb issues apology after tone-deaf ads pop up in San Francisco https://t.co/lKdMLfP5c1 pic.twitter.com/YQsEmxsLxF

— Mother Jones (@MotherJones) October 23, 2015

With this very expensive and contentious question being posed to voters, it will be interesting to see how it shakes out.

Kentucky Gubernatorial Race

Kentucky’s governorship is up for grabs, with a hotly-contested race between Democratic Attorney General Jack Conway and the Republican nominee, Matt Bevin, a wealthy businessman and tea party darling. Bevin almost successfully primary-ed Senator Mitch McConnell last year. To a lot of observers, the race between Conway and Bevin is symptomatic of some overall trends–on one hand Tea Party extremists pushing out more establishment Republicans, and on the other, Democrats struggling in state wide races. Like the Virginia State Assembly, this Kentucky governor’s race may shed some further light on national trends as we move toward 2016.

Ohio Marijuana Initiative

Ohio voters will have to vote on Issue 3, which if it passes, will legalize recreational and medical marijuana in the state. If it passes, Ohio will be the first state to legalize recreational marijuana without first legalizing medical marijuana. But there are some serious concerns about the implications of legalizing marijuana in Ohio, summed up yesterday by fellow Law Streeter Alexis Evans. One big concern is the fact that legalizing marijuana it in the state will make the group of 10 investors pushing the effort very wealthy, as they will have control over the state’s marijuana market.

The Houston Equal Rights Ordinance

The city of Houston, Texas, will be voting today on an equal rights ordinance which would specify non-discrimination in arenas such as employment and public housing. The law, which is on the ballot as Proposition 1, would include protections for the LGBTQ community, as it specifies sexual orientation, genetic information, and gender identity. Opponents to the ordinance have fixated on one particular aspect–that it will allow people who are trans to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity, and made some truly disgusting and fear-mongering commercials urging people to vote against it.

Given that this is one of the first big public tests of LGBTQ rights post-Obergefell, the Houston vote is certainly 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 2015 Elections: Top Five Votes to Watch appeared first on Law Street.

“I am not taking it off and I won’t take it off.”

That is what Suffolk, VA resident Kevin Collier said to a news crew when asked about his refusal to give up his expired Confederate flag license plate–and he isn’t the only one taking a stand. Collier is just one of many in the state refusing to relinquish expired tags in response to a new state law banning the plates.

Virginians are refusing to give up recalled license plates featuring the Confederate flag http://t.co/QzvFCRnpML pic.twitter.com/zRGXemIXIG

— Intl. Business Times (@IBTimes) October 19, 2015

Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe announced plans to begin phasing out the plates in June, after a Supreme Court decision determined that specialty plates are a “form of government expression” and therefore aren’t subject to First Amendment protections.

As a result, in August approximately 1,600 people still using specialty plates with the Sons of Confederacy emblem were sent newly designed plates by the Department of Motor Vehicles, and were given until October 4 to comply before their current tags became invalid and subsequently illegal. So far only 187 plates have been returned to the DMV.

Virginia’s push to abolish plates bearing the Confederate flag was a direct result of the June shooting at a black church in Charleston, South Carolina that left nine African-Americans dead. The horrific attack reignited pleas to ban the flag once and for all after Facebook photos of the 21-year-old shooter, Dylann Roof, showed him posing with Confederate flags. Roof is said to have targeted the church hoping to incite a new “civil war.”

However, despite the flag’s roots in slavery, those in favor of keeping it around maintain that it is a symbol of their heritage rather than a symbol of hate. Collier said,

It wasn’t about hate, it was a battle flag, a battle flag that we fought for. It had nothing to do with hate, and nothing to do with racism.

He then added.

I was born a 150 years too late because I would have loved to have fought for the Confederacy like my ancestors did, but at least I can fight how I can in modern times. I will fight however I can.

But, it’s hard to argue that a flag isn’t racist when one person coming to its defense claims they would have gladly fought for the side advocating for the continued enslavement of African-Americans.

According to a Charleston NBC affiliate, the DMV tried to work with the Sons of Confederate Veterans on the design of the new plate, but the organization did not respond. Now any violators choosing to still drive vehicles with the canceled plates could face a misdemeanor and a hefty fine. But is fighting for a racially offensive “heritage” really worth breaking the law? These Virginia drivers will soon be finding out.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Some VA Drivers Refuse to Give up Their Confederate Flag License Plates appeared first on Law Street.

Sharing the details of a sexual assault can be a frightening and invasive experience for a victim, which is just one explanation for why a staggering amount of rapes go unreported each year in this country. The reasons for why these women and men choose not to share their stories are vast, making it a challenge for police to catch their abusers. But what happens when police goad a unwilling victim into sharing her story, only to later arrest her for lying? A rape survivor in Prince William County, Virginia found out.

In a recent in-depth profile by Buzzfeed, Lara McLeod, 23, shared that when she was 19 she was raped by her sister’s fiancé Joaquin Rams–just two weeks after her sister, Hera, had given birth to Rams’ son Prince. When Lara confided in her family about the rape, it confirmed Hera’s unsettling suspicions about her fiancé. Lara’s family supported her decision not to report the rape, but Hera wanted to immediately cut ties with Rams.

Hera called Prince William County police to request an escort to pick up her belongings from the house she shared with Rams, but upon seeing the police, a “confused” Rams starting yelling that he hadn’t touched Lara. That’s when Buzzfeed reports that the routine escort request turned into an investigation for an alleged rape.

Despite her reluctance to report the assault, Lara was persuaded by police to go on record accusing Rams for the rape. However, the tables quickly turned after police began questioning her about specifics in the case like “why she didn’t try harder to escape.” Investigators’ biases on how rape victims “should act” lead them to conclude that Lara was lying, so they arrested her and charged her with making a false report.

Lara McLeod was arrested for reporting her own rape. Later her rapist murdered her n… https://t.co/fNItkxBB1a #news pic.twitter.com/b55oFSsqXn

— [ Police News ] (@InsidePolice) September 28, 2015

Her sister Hera was also charged with obstruction of justice, after allegedly deleting  video footage of her sister’s rape, that Rams had apparently filmed without either sisters’ knowledge. These charges were devastating for the two sisters, especially for Lara who watched as her reputation was ruined as more and more people learned of her supposed “fake rape.” It took years before the charges were finally expunged, but the experience left Lara with deep mistrust for law enforcement. But as reporter Katie J.M. Baker put it, the “worst was yet to come.”

According to Buzzfeed,

In the ensuing battle for custody over Prince, Hera and Joaquin’s infant son, it emerged that not only had Joaquin lied about his name, employment history, and age — he was a decade older than he had claimed — but he had also once been a suspect in his ex-girlfriend’s shooting death and a person of interest in his mother’s death, too, although he was never successfully charged in either case. He had been accused of child abuse by his other son, although never convicted, and ran an amateur porn site.

But thanks to the charges against Hera and Lara, Joaquin was able to portray himself as a comparatively fit parent — and the victim of a smear job. The judge granted Joaquin unsupervised visits. Three months later, EMTs found Prince unconscious on the floor of Joaquin’s house. The 15-month-old died the next day. Months later, Joaquin was charged with capital murder.

This story manages to combine almost everything that’s bad in this world into one perfect storm. A woman was raped, her life was ruined, and incompetence from the legal system led to her baby nephew’s death. The actual intricacies of the case are mind boggling. There was mishandling of evidence, miranda rights weren’t read, and the police involved operated under the bias that many women lie about being raped.

Until this kind of prejudice against rape victims is erased, sexual assault will continue to plague this country, rapes will continue to go unreported, and confidence in our police forces with only continue to dwindle. I hope Lara’s story sparks some change for the better.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Police Convinced This Women to Report her Rape, Then Arrested her for Lying appeared first on Law Street.

ICYMI, here are Law Street’s top stories of the week. The number one story involves Ellen Page and Ted Cruz battling over gay rights in Iowa. The number two story covered two reporters who were shot by a disgruntled former coworker in Virginia. Finally, number three involved Kanye West’s declaration of presidency for 2020. Check out all three below:

#1 Ted Cruz vs. Ellen Page: Argument Over Religious Freedom and LGBTQ Rights

Republican Presidential hopeful Ted Cruz got into a back-and-forth with actress and LGBTQ rights advocate Ellen Page on Friday. She confronted him at a barbecue he was hosting before a religious freedom rally in Iowa as part of a show she’s working on with Vice. Page was clad in a hat and oversize sunglasses, so Cruz clearly didn’t recognize her as the actress who starred in hits like “Inception” and “Juno.” Read the full story here.

#2 Disgruntled Employee Kills Virginia Reporter and Cameraman on Live TV

A television reporter and cameraman were shot dead during a live news broadcast for WDBJ-TV, a Roanoke-Lynchburg CBS affiliate, this morning in Moneta, Virginia. Alison Parker, 24, and photojournalist Adam Ward, 27 were in the middle of filming a segment on tourism at the Bridgewater Plaza when several shots rang out at 6:45 am. Read the full story here.

#3 Is Kanye West Really Running for President?

Last night’s MTV Video Music Awards went much like you’d expect. Miley attempted to shock viewers with nipple skimming outfits and weed references, none of the jokes were funny, Taylor Swift won most of the awards, and Kanye managed to steal the show–but this time without stealing a mic from Swift. During a bizarre 11-minute-long acceptance speech for the Michael Jackson Video Vanguard Award, Yeezy talked about everything from how fatherhood changed him to fighting for artists…and a possible presidential run in 2020? Read the full story here.

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 ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

The number one article at Law Street this week came from Marisa Mostek, our resident authority on the dumbest laws of the United States. And guess what? Alaska and Hawaii are no exception. The second most popular post of the week, from Alexis Evans, is decidedly more serious as the UVA rape allegations that ran last Fall in Rolling Stone were found baseless by the police. And the number three article of the week, from Ashley Shaw, details the case of a criminal who outed his own hiding spot by Snapchatting it to his friends. ICYMI, check out this week’s best of the week from Law Street.

#1 The Dumbest Laws of the United States: Alaska and Hawaii

The last two additions to the family of United States could not be any more different in some ways, for example their opposing climates. However, Hawaii and Alaska are similar in that both possess a unique set of strange and dumb laws. In Anchorage, Alaska, there is a law specifically banning tying a dog to the roof of a car. Perhaps this brings to mind a certain politician doing so a few years back cough Mitt Romney cough. Read full article here.

#2 Police Find No Evidence to Support UVA Gang Rape Story

Last November, Rolling Stone shocked the nation with its 9,000-word article entitled “A Rape on Campus.” The piece told the horrific story of a University of Virginia freshman known only as “Jackie.” She claimed to have been gang raped by seven Phi Kappa Psi frat members during a frat date party. The article accused UVA of a “cycle of sexual violence” and “institutional indifference” that preferred to silence girls like Jackie who reported rape instead of helping them. The piece started an impressive national dialogue about rape culture, particularly rape culture on college campuses. Now after four months of investigating and roughly 70 interviews, police have concluded that the gang rape that reignited a movement most likely never even happened. Read full article here.

#3 Peek-a-Boo! Cops Find Crook Who Snapchatted His Location

There are a lot of stories about idiots who are wanted for one crime or another who get caught through social media. This might be because the police post their searches on Facebook and people see them and report the fugitives’ whereabouts. It could be the girl who posted a video on YouTube talking about everything she had just stolen. Or the guy who posted a pic of himself siphoning gas from a police car. Basically what this shows us is that many crooks are stupid and arrogant, and the man in this week’s story is no exception. Read full article here.

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 ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday night, 20-year-old University of Virginia student Martese Johnson was brutally arrested. His treatment has sparked outrage around the country, and has led to protests at the university. Moreover, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe has called for an investigation into the police officers’ use of force.

Read More: Militarization: Arming the Police Against Against American Citizens

Like many Americans, students at the University of Virginia went out to celebrate St. Patrick’s Day Tuesday night. Martese Johnson, a junior double majoring in Media Studies and Italian, was one of them. Johnson was with friends trying to get into the Trinity Irish Pub, when he was stopped by a bouncer guarding the door. At this point, an agent from the Virginia Department of Adult Beverage Control, or ABC, grabbed Johnson and brought him over to a group of other ABC agents. According to eyewitness Bryan Beaubrun, when Johnson asked the agent to let go and backed away, he was grabbed from behind and then wrestled to the ground by multiple agents. In the process, he hit his head on the ground, and sustained injuries that required ten stitches.

I stand with Martese Johnson. There is no excuse for this. @VirginiaABC you should be ashamed. pic.twitter.com/4j3bnfDlBI

— UVAProblems (@UVAProbs) March 18, 2015

After being arrested, Johnson was charged with resisting arrest, obstructing justice without threats of force, and profane swearing or intoxication in public. He was released on bail later the next morning.

After the release of pictures and footage of the aftermath of Johnson’s arrest, many have been protesting the way in which he was treated. McAuliffe has authorized an investigation into the circumstances, and UVA president Teresa Sullivan has put out a statement detailing her concerns. In an email sent to the student body, she stated:

Today, as U.Va. students, faculty, and staff who share a set of deeply held values, we stand unified in our commitment to seeking the truth about this incident. And we stand united in our belief that equal treatment and equal justice are among our fundamental rights under the law.

She also stressed, however, that details aren’t yet clear at this time, and encouraged anyone with any information about the arrest to come forward and provide eyewitness testimony.

Last night, hundreds of UVA students, as well as faculty and other members of the community, rallied in support of Johnson, who also attended the march. His face clearly still showed signs of his injury from the night before.

Photos from protest at #UVa in response to #MarteseJohnson‘s injuries from ABC arrest http://t.co/i6XFYmlsz0pic.twitter.com/rXCJX33Et1

— Amy Friedenberger (@AJFriedenberger) March 19, 2015

Johnson thanked the community for coming out to support him, saying:

This University opened me up. You being here is the reason why I still believe in the community of trust even with a busted head standing here on this stage.

The gathering featured other students speaking about their personal experiences, expressing dismay about how Johnson was treated, and talk about how to move forward. It’s certainly moving to see the university community standing together to protest the inhumane treatment of one of its own, but the fact that such inhumane treatment happened in the first place remains troubling. It’s yet another example in national conversation about race and discrimination that seems to get more complicated and upsetting every day.

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 UVA Community Gathers in Support of Martese Johnson appeared first on Law Street.

If he looks like a cop, talks like cop, and acts like a cop, he’s probably a cop right? Well, sort of. A growing trend shows civilians are forming private police forces of one to patrol our streets. Armed with a gun and a badge, they can write citations and make arrests. The kicker? The whole thing is completely legal.

According to the Washington Post, Virginia state records indicate the number of private police or “special conservators of the peace” (SCOPs) has doubled in Virginia over the last 10 years to number about 750, and consistent growth can been seen all over the nation.

But how is it that these “SCOPs” have any authority?

Well, a provision of state law allows private citizens to petition the court to become SCOPs. An individual petitions the court to be commissioned with the help of a sponsorship from an employer. After undergoing background checks, alcohol and drug tests, and completing required training hours, a circuit court judge will rule on the petition and designate their jurisdiction(s). If approved, a civilian can become a one man police force instantly. The majority of these private police officers are hired to patrol corporate campuses, work for neighborhood associations, or perform code enforcement for counties or cities.

The Virginia legislature just passed a bill that increased SCOPs’ required training hours from 40 to 130, but that is still drastically lower than the amount required of municipal officers–usually ranging from 580 to 1,200 hours. While SCOPs include some former cops, they also include some police academy rejects, which is cause for concern. The increase in training hours can be seen as a push from Virginia lawmakers to improve the legitimacy of these officers amidst complaints that they’re significantly under-trained and unregulated. According to the Post, Virginia isn’t the only state to have its issues with these private police:

In 2012, more than 20 residents of the Cherry Hill neighborhood of Baltimore filed a $25 million lawsuit against a Cleveland security company, claiming its guards had abused residents and violated their civil rights by stopping them illegally and making false arrests. Two of the three guards named in the suit were ‘special police,’ a designation similar to SCOPs in Virginia.

The exact duties, responsibilities and geographic limitations of these SCOPs vary depending on what was deemed appropriate by the court for the individual. Without a clear understanding of the duties that these pseudo cops are certified to perform, it can be hard for civilians to understand their rights when dealing with them.

That new Virginia bill sponsored by Senator Thomas Norment Jr is looking to up those requirements for the SCOPs, and it will probably be signed by Governor Terry McAuliffe. But Norment thinks more needs to be done, like making sure that SCOPs can’t call themselves cops. Taking away that title may end up taking away some of these officers legitimacy, but making the distinction that they’re “kinda cops” rather than real officers may be necessary.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Special Conservators of the Peace: Private Police Forces of One appeared first on Law Street.

Crime and weird news ruled the news last week. A new interactive map from writer Law Street’s crime editor Kevin Rizzo made waves across the internet as it allows you to visualize where crime in the United States is getting better or worse. Definitely check that out! The number two story, from Anneliese Mahoney, brings yoga pants back into the news as Montana lawmakers continue their quest to outlaw the comfortable clothing in public spaces. And finally the third most popular post came from writer Marisa Mostek with her weekly look at the dumbest laws across the country, this time focusing in on the Virginias and the Carolinas. ICYMI, check out the best of the week from Law Street.

#1 Interactive Crime Map: Is Your City Getting Safer or More Dangerous?

As reported in Law Street’s comprehensive annual crime rankings, Crime in America 2015, violent crime across the United States continued its downward trend according to the latest figures reported by the FBI. Curious to know how your hometown stacks up against the rest of the country? Check out the interactive map below for yourself to see if your city is getting safer or more dangerous according to the latest data. Read full article here.

#2 Just Relax: Montana Lawmaker Attempts to Ban Yoga Pants

A proposed bill that would ban yoga pants in Montana has been tabled, eliciting joy from practitioners, women who like to be comfy, and rational human beings everywhere. If you’ve never worn yoga pants before (or their closely related cousin the leggings) they’re basically like wearing a hug on your legs. But not everyone is that happy with yoga pants, because they tend to conform to our bodies, apparently rendering them a scourge to society that needs to be outlawed. Read full article here.

#3 Dumbest Laws in the United States: The Virginias and the Carolinas

This week, the dumb laws blog will focus on two sets of neighboring states: Virginia and West Virginia and North and South Carolina. What do railroad companies and Sundays have in common? South Carolina has dumb laws pertaining to both seemingly unrelated things, as it turns out. On Sundays in South Carolina, you won’t be able to go dancing, as dance halls may not operate on that day of the week. Also on Sundays in South Carolina, you cannot do any work. It is the day of rest after all. If you wish to spend your day off playing an instrument, make sure you buy one before Sunday, as they are banned from being sold then. It makes sense, if you think about it–since work on Sunday is prohibited, who would be working at the musical instrument store? Read full article here.

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 ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

This week, the dumb laws blog will focus on two sets of neighboring states: Virginia and West Virginia and North and South Carolina.

What do railroad companies and Sundays have in common? South Carolina has dumb laws pertaining to both seemingly unrelated things, as it turns out. On Sundays in South Carolina, you won’t be able to go dancing, as dance halls may not operate on that day of the week. Also on Sundays in South Carolina, you cannot do any work. It is the day of rest after all. If you wish to spend your day off playing an instrument, make sure you buy one before Sunday, as they are banned from being sold then. It makes sense, if you think about it–since work on Sunday is prohibited, who would be working at the musical instrument store?

There is a surprisingly large number of laws dedicated to the regulation of railroads in the Palmetto state. In some cases there, railroad companies may be held liable for scaring horses, so hopefully conductors steer clear of skittish steeds. That may be a difficult feat, however, considering that by law, railroads must exist in towns of more than 500 people. Men also must be 100 percent sure about marriage before popping the question, because if an unmarried man promises to wed an unmarried woman, they legally must follow through.

South Carolina’s neighbor to the north has some pretty dumb laws as well. If you can somehow get around federal and state laws prohibiting you from possessing illegal substances, you must pay taxes on them in North Carolina. Yes, I’m sure that everyone with drugs in that state will make that fact known and pay taxes on them. Logical, North Carolina, so logical. Speaking of taxes, a three dollar tax must be paid on all white goods sold. Perhaps that includes sugar, white shirts, milk, you name it. If I ever buy something in North Carolina I’ll definitely stick to colored things.

Bingo in the Tar Heel state must have gotten a bit out of hand in the past, as now there is a law dictating that the game may not last over five hours unless it is held at a fair. Furthermore, serving alcohol at bingo games is strictly prohibited. Residents also take meetings very, very seriously. Even if one is held on Halloween, organizations may not hold their meetings while the members present are in costume.

Virginia cops must have a difficult time deciphering if someone is speeding or not, as radar detectors are illegal there. And even those in a consensual relationship, no matter how long they’ve been in it, cannot have sex by Virginia law, which limits sexual relations to married couples. Even married couples, however, are prevented from having oral or anal sex.

Hunting laws in Virginia are strict when it comes to every animal, stating that none except raccoons may be hunted on Sunday. Hunters have to cancel their raccoon hunting trip if they occur late at night, as hunting the furry bandits is only legal until 2:00 a.m. It’s good that Virginia law takes serious measures to prevent kids potentially drowning in private pools, but this state takes it to the extreme. In the city of Frederick, any pool owner risks a $2,500 fine for not closing the gate to the pool when they finish swimming in it.

I’m not entirely sure why someone would WANT to own a skunk as a pet, but doing so is illegal in Prince William County, Virginia, just in case. Another strange law there is one banning swearing about someone else in his or her presence. Hey, maybe that area of Virginia just wants people to be nice to each other.

West Virginia had many stupid laws prior to 2010, when a good portion of them were repealed. These repealed laws include ones fining people who wear hats inside theaters and individuals who commit adultery. Also repealed was a law stating that any “unmarried couple who live together and ‘lewdly associate’ with one another may face up to a year in prison.”

As far as current stupid laws go, West Virginia still has plenty. For example, just like Virginia, West Virginia has a law pertaining to swearing. There, if you swear in public, you will be fined one dollar. Also, if you are feeling hungry and see some roadkill that looks tasty, go ahead and take it home for dinner. Doing so is completely legal in West Virginia.

Phew, so many stupid laws, so little time. On to the next part of the United States!

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dumbest Laws in the United States: The Virginias and the Carolinas appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

A couple of weeks I wrote about Rolling Stone’s report of a young woman being brutally raped on the University of Virginia campus. Last week Rolling Stone retracted the story, even apologizing to its readers. After the original report hit the news cycle people hung on to every word–even the administrators at UVA took action by banning all fraternities–but now it seems that the story may not have been true.

In my first article I was conflicted about the story of Jackie–the victim–and wondered why she would value her reputation at the school by keeping quiet for so long over her own well-being and justice. I get that being raped by five to seven guys is a traumatic event, one that no one would ever want to relive, but why would you allow your “friends” to talk you into keeping something like that quiet, as the report indicated? Why allow seven rapists to troll the campus for another possible victim?

I believe in the theory that there are three sides to every story, and in this case those sides belong to the victim, the unnamed rapists, and the truth somewhere between the two. One person’s perspective on an event can be totally different from someone else’s, so combining both stories usually brings out a more accurate truth, in my opinion. What Rolling Stone  did was allow Jackie to tell her side of a story without sufficient due diligence on the part of the publication by contacting the men she accused and fact checking the story. Granted, I don’t know how much fact checking you can do when a young woman states she was raped two years ago. Yes, you can check to see if such a party took place at the frat house, but there isn’t much more access someone can get without starting to raise flags. Rolling Stone‘s journalism in this case was abysmal.

My biggest question is would UVA administrators have taken the time to do a thorough investigation if this were privately handled? I would like to think so, but the cynic in me knows that sometimes administrators put the reputation of a school above the well-being of its students.

I’m ashamed of Rolling Stone, not just because of this article but because of several missteps over the last couple of years. The cover where it got the facts wrong on who signed the Constitution–a staple of being an American. The RIDICULOUS decision to put a terrorist on the cover of its magazine where he looked more like a rockstar than an enemy of the state! Fact checking and respecting Americans is clearly not on the agenda over at Rolling Stone. Maybe you guys should stick with what you know–entertainment. But really, you shouldn’t even do that because those reviews are usually wrong, too.

Fellow Law Streeter Anneliese Mahoney wrote about how Rolling Stone’s retraction affects rape victims in America. I agree with her, the original Rolling Stone article and later retraction are going to make real victims of rape shy away even more from reporting their experiences. UVA administrators and investigators disproved certain facts that Jackie reported to Rolling Stone. Why couldn’t this publication have taken a little more time and done the right thing? Why did it not take a step back and try to get a full story? Look at the big picture? Yes, it was probably trying to do a good thing in telling this story. So many women feel like they were not alone and were encouraged to tell their story because somehow Jackie found the strength to do it. But now that “strength and courage” have been squashed by reality.

It’s Go Ask Alice all over again. The diary of a young girl that was in fact fictional but presented as truth. There is a certain level of betrayal from the publishers of Go Ask Alice and the people over at Rolling Stone. You want to help rape victims? Try doing your job and not ruining what victims have worked so hard for. That 5.9 percent of false accusations that Anneliese mentions are the ones that are heard the loudest and hung on to the longest. Those who cry wolf are the ones doing the most damage to real victims and Rolling Stone may have just let someone cry wolf on the main stage with a loud speaker.

I’ve shamed Rolling Stone. I’ve shamed UVA. I’ve even shamed Jackie. But now it’s time to reiterate that even though her story as published in Rolling Stone may not be true, anyone who is a victim of rape–or any crime–should find the strength in themselves to speak up. Be what Jackie was supposed to be–a role model who is taking charge of what happened to her and standing up for herself and victims alike.

Don’t let Rolling Stone take away your power.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rolling Stone, Bad Journalism, and the Future of Rape Victims appeared first on Law Street.

Early this afternoon, Rolling Stone released a post entitled “A Note to Our Readers.” It was a follow-up to a story published last month that took an extensive look at rape culture on the campus of the University of Virginia. Although the story was far-reaching, it focused particularly on a young woman named Jackie who allegedly was gang-raped at a fraternity party. I use the word allegedly because even though I believed Jackie’s story wholeheartedly, Rolling Stone has now retracted the article.

“A Note to Our Readers” was spectacularly vague, and in my opinion, put more blame on Jackie than a nationally known and respected news publication, but that’s almost beside the point. You can read the full retraction here, but here’s the part that stuck out to me. For context, it’s important to understand that Rolling Stone never interviewed or spoke with the men Jackie accused, out of an attempt to respect the fact that she was fearful of them. This is the what Rolling Stone included in its note today:

In the face of new information, there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie’s account, and we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced. We were trying to be sensitive to the unfair shame and humiliation many women feel after a sexual assault and now regret the decision to not contact the alleged assaulters to get their account. We are taking this seriously and apologize to anyone who was affected by the story.

There were discrepancies to Jackie’s account–for example, the fact that she may have gotten the date of the party wrong, and so on. I don’t have the information that Rolling Stone does, and they were clearly being purposefully vague–but “discrepancies” does not render the entire story null and void.

Discrepancies are part of reporting, part of crime, and part of life. Jackie was telling this story after the fact and was relaying a traumatized experience. If she didn’t have discrepancies, I’d be more surprised.

And what people want is tidy little narratives from victims. They want perfect and total recall from shocking situations.

— roxane gay (@rgay) December 5, 2014

Our legal system doesn’t demand that every little question be answered and correct–I’m going to make an entirely unfair comparison here, but a grand jury in Ferguson, Missouri proved just a few weeks ago that discrepancies in stories apparently mean jack squat. So why would the existence of discrepancies make Rolling Stone pull their story?

There are a couple of explanations. One is that they’re protecting their asses. They don’t want to get sued. They are businesspeople and they are choosing to protect their business, regardless if it means invalidating a quite possibly real and shocking story.

Another explanation is that Jackie lied, and Rolling Stone didn’t catch it. I don’t want to believe this is true. False accusations are rare–exceedingly rare–but they do exist. A study out of Northeastern University estimates them at about 5.9 percent. That’s of course only out of rapes that are reported–there are far more that aren’t, which means that the people who report false rape vs. people who are actually sexually assaulted are really rare. I highly doubt that this was fabricated, but it’s not impossible. There could be half truths too–Jackie could be telling someone else’s story who was too afraid to come out with it. Either way, I can’t say with certainty but I don’t think this was a lie. And honestly if it was, that’s on Rolling Stone too for screwing up their fact checking.

Because at the end of the day, it should be Rolling Stone we’re mad at. This whole thing is going to encourage rape victims to hide, not come forward and tell their story, unless they can remember every damn detail and prove it. It’s going to shift the conversation from the legitimate problem we have with sexual assault in this country to conversations about journalism. This incident is going to be cited by rape apologists and those who claim false rape accusations until those idiots are blue in the face. It’s going to set us back, there’s no way it’s not going to.

Rolling Stone: you didn’t do your job, and now rape victims are going to pay the price.

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 Rolling Stone Just Set Back Rape Victims’ Progress in America appeared first on Law Street.

Law Street’s top three articles last week covered a whole range of hot topics. Don’t worry if you ate too much turkey and couldn’t keep your eyes open to read them though, we’ve got you covered here. The Crime in America Team’s coverage of the Safest and Most Dangerous States in the nation took the top spot; Noel Diem delved into the complicated world of school dress codes and their effects on students for article number two; and Allison Dawson wrote the third most popular post of the week with a look into the University of Virginia’s move to shut down fraternities while it investigates rape allegations published in Rolling Stone. ICYMI, here are the top three stores of the week from Law Street.

#1 Slideshow: America’s Safest & Most Dangerous States 2015

Alaska is the most dangerous state in the nation according to the latest violent crime data from the FBI. With an increase in violent crime rate from 603 per 100,000 people in 2012 to 640 in 2013–the most recent year for which the FBI provides data–Alaska moved into the number one spot, followed by New Mexico (613) and Nevada (603). Read full article here.

#2 School Dress Codes: Are Yoga Pants Really the Problem?

Anyone who has been inside of a high school in the last five years has seen some interesting fashion choices by today’s teenagers. Teachers are expected to teach to the tests, teach students how to survive in the real world, personalize the curriculum for IEP students of all levels, and still have their work graded within twenty-four hours. And now? Some districts are adding another dimension: dress code enforcement. Dress codes are an important part of school culture, as they sometimes dictate whether or not a student can even attend class. Read full article here.

#3 University of Virginia Suspends All Fraternities After Rape Allegations

You might have missed it with all the huge news events within the last week, but there was aRolling Stone article published last week about a young woman who was the victim of a heinous crime. Seven (yes, SEVEN) young men at a fraternity party raped the woman over a three-hour period. The rape took place two years ago, but now that the story is out UVA President Teresa A. Sullivan has decided to shut down all fraternities until at least January 9, 2015. Read full article here.

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 ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Last week Rachel Craig, 28, from Waynesboro, Virginia was convicted under the state’s new revenge porn law. She faces up to one year in jail and a $2,500 fine. The revenge porn law went into effect in July and it criminalizes posting nude pictures of someone on the Internet without the individual’s consent. Craig was said to have been in an argument with her former boyfriend when she allegedly stole a picture of his current girlfriend from his phone and posted it on Facebook. Craig even took full credit for the act and warned the victim “not to mess with her” according to Sgt. Brian Edwards of the Waynesboro, Virginia Police Department.

Okay. I’m sorry. What!?! I have so many questions. First of all, if he is your former boyfriend why are you still even communicating with him? Secondly, what was she doing with his phone at all? Third, don’t you think at 28 you would be mature enough to not take this to Facebook? I don’t get it. I don’t get the blatant disregard for an innocent bystander and the maturity level of this woman. I also kind of wish there was a stupid clause tacked on to the law to give this girl an extra six months to sit in solitude and think about how dumb this whole situation is. Craig might go to jail and have to fork over $2,500 for something petty that could have been avoided if she just stopped and thought about what was the real issue and not harming an innocent bystander.

Two months ago another woman in Virginia — Crystal Cherry — was also charged with revenge porn because she posted nude photos of her boyfriend’s former girlfriend on Instagram and Twitter just days after the new law went into effect. Again, another one of these women who is dumb enough to take to social media and create issues that could be avoided at all costs if she could just handle her problems like an adult.

I like this law. The only thing that concerns me is that if this is a first-time offense, both Crystal and Rachel will probably not do any time and will just pay the fee. I know prisons are crowded and our tax dollars are hard at work with sustaining life for idiots who like to break the law, but maybe there should be something a little bit more that we could do. Maybe a class on how to not be so stupid? Or teach kids the proper way to use social media?

I like Facebook and Instagram and I admittedly have a serious love of Twitter, but I don’t need to know everything that you are doing. I don’t need to read about your daily drama. And I definitely don’t want to see you posting nude photos of another woman just because you’re mad at some dude who probably won’t matter to you in five years. Craig and Cherry get to be reminded of that every day now for the rest of their lives when they have to include their misdemeanor convictions on any application they fill out.

This month Jennifer Lawrence is on the cover of Vanity Fair and in her interview she mentions the celebrity nude hacking scandal that she was a part of. J-Law called it a “sex crime not a scandal,” and I tend to agree with her. Not only did this hacker violate someone’s privacy but also committed a cyber crime. Hundreds of celebrities’ nude photos were splashed across the internet, violating their privacy. Some people say that when you choose the life of a celebrity you choose to give up your privacy, but I completely disagree. Celebrities are still people. But I will criticize anyone who is dumb enough to take nude photos and save them anywhere. iCloud is not secure. Your computer is not secure. There is always someone trying to hack into something that will violate you in some way and they may just be doing it for the fun or just because they can.

Even some idiot Pasadena, Texas school teacher gave nude photos to a student she was having an affair with who ultimately ended up sharing them with others. Ashley Zehnder, 24, had reported that nude photos of her were being shared throughout the school where she taught. An investigation revealed that she was sleeping with a student who shared them. Will anything happen to the student who was having the affair and sharing the nude photos? Probably not. But Zehnder lost her job, will go to jail, and will probably have to register as a sex offender. Can we say Mary Kay Letourneau?

I think that there is a lesson in all of this. People need to be more cautious about what they are doing and where it is being saved. Craig and Cherry’s victims are on the same side as Jennifer Lawrence and other celebrities. The only difference is Craig and Cherry got caught. Zehnder is the predator and the victim. Her private nude photos were shared with an entire school but she also preyed on a student.

Word to the wise: if you are going to take nude photos use a Polaroid and burn them when you are done if you don’t want them to be shared. Or better yet, just don’t take them. Have a little modesty and respect for yourself. If you want to share being nude do it in person where the only other person looking at you can only use their memory, not a hard copy that could be sent out to the world.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post PSA: Nude Photos Will Send You to Jail appeared first on Law Street.

A California federal court dismissed a trademark lawsuit last week that John Wayne Enterprises brought against Duke University. The case was dismissed based on lack of jurisdiction and improper venue.

Actor John Wayne, born Marion Robert Morrison, had several nicknames that contained the word “Duke,” such as Duke Morrison, Duke Wayne, and The Duke. John Wayne Enterprises was created to “preserve and protect the name, image, and likeness of John Wayne by associating the John Wayne brand with quality and timeless products and experiences that embody the spirit of John Wayne and give back to the community.” In July 2013, the organization filed a trademark application with the Patent and Trademark Office to use the trademarks “Duke” and “Duke John Wayne” on all alcoholic beverages except beer. Last July, the organization sued Duke University for infringing its Duke trademark on alcoholic bottles.

John Wayne Enterprises argued that Duke University does not own the word “Duke” for use for all purposes’ however, the university argued that John Wayne Enterprises’ use of “Duke” on alcohol beverages caused consumer confusion, which trademark law is designed to prevent. According to the Los Angeles Times, John Wayne Enterprises’ “Duke” trademark is “a label on a bottle of bourbon stamped with a silhouette of the movie star in a cowboy hat, clutching a gun. The name ‘DUKE’ is stamped over his thighs, and John Wayne’s signature is reproduced near his feet.”  The John Wayne Enterprises logo can be seen here.

John Wayne Enterprises tried to gain personal jurisdiction over Duke University in a California federal court because “the school actively recruits students there, raises money there, maintains alumni associations there and sells university-related products there.” However, U.S. District Judge David Carter dismissed the Wayne estate’s lawsuit for lack of jurisdiction and said the case belonged in front of the Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Appeal Board in Alexandria, Virginia.

The court believed that “Duke was aware of John Wayne Enterprises’s presence in the state, but that there was no showing how Duke [University] purposefully directed its conduct at California by filing an opposition to trademarks in Virginia [the location of the Patent and Trademark Office.]”

John Wayne Enterprises and Duke University have battled over the use of the “Duke” trademark before. A July article in the Hollywood Reporter cites conflicts over using the name “Duke” in restaurant services, gaming machines, and celebrity licensing services. Thus, Judge Carter’s dismissal is likely not the end of this case. John Wayne Enterprises can always bring a suit against Duke University on the East Coast.

It’s rare to see John Wayne on the losing-end of a battle, but I am sure that John Wayne Enterprises is already preparing its next move to prevail in the end.

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 The Duke’s Trademark Suit Against Duke University is Dismissed appeared first on Law Street.

It’s any teen’s worst nightmare: your girlfriend’s mother discovers the sexually-explicit video you sent to her phone and she reports it to the cops. That’s horrifying enough, but the cops in a recent incident are trying to take a 17 year old’s humiliation to the next level.

This week, a Manassas, Virginia teen was charged with distributing pornographic material in the form of a video of his own sexual endeavors. This in itself sounds a bit strange, to charge one for distributing material about him or herself. Doesn’t he have a right to that material, despite being 17?

Ready for the truly disturbing element of the story? Brace yourselves, especially my male readers.

In order to identify the teen in the video, the cops in charge of the investigation want to (ready for it?) induce him to have an erection for them all to observe via an injection in a hospital. I can see you all grabbing your crotches in terror now.

I would say “I’m left speechless,” because this is the kind of situation that that saying is generally reserved for, but I actually find I have heaps to say. My mind simply cannot fathom that conducting such an emotionally-scarring procedure is legal. Not to mention the legality of obtaining the video via a search of his phone in the first place. According to the Washington Post, only one individual has attested to seeing the alleged warrant that grants permission for this.

As noted by Carlos Flores Laboy, the teen’s appointed guardian, the cops’ desire to take photos of his erect penis more or less equates to trying to combat child pornography with child pornography. There’s some nice hypocrisy for you.

They’re using a statute that was designed to protect children from being exploited in a sexual manner to take a picture of this young man in a sexually explicit manner. The irony is incredible. As a parent myself, I was floored. It’s child abuse. We’re wasting thousands of dollars and resources and man hours on a sexting case. That’s what we’re doing.

-Flores Laboy

After obtaining the photos, analysts would need to use “penis to penis” software, or, as one man commented on the article, “penis identification hardware.” Get it?

Let’s take this case at face value — it is an attempt to wildly blow out of proportion a “sexting” conversation between a girlfriend and her boyfriend and morph it into a child pornography case that would instantly land the teen with two felonies and the requirement that he register as a sex offender. Lesson to all those lovers under age of 18 — don’t send sexy videos to each other. Just wait like, a couple of years. I really hope she doesn’t dump the poor guy for this…

It sounds almost like a police department soap opera. You’ve got drama, child pornography, underage lovers, and major hypocrisy. I feel pretty confident that the police department could spend its time doing something far more productive, like trying to nab legit sex offenders like the creepy old dudes that prey on little kids.

Thankfully someone other than just me came to that conclusion, as the department decided to forgo its forced-erection project. The public, expressing these strange things called logic and reason, seems to have convinced the cops planning to take the graphic photos of the teen’s privates to drop their perverted plan.

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Alton via wikimedia]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Combating Alleged Child Porn by Compelling a Minor to Drop His Pants? 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 [Charles Paradis 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 Schools for Healthcare Law: #10 University of Virginia School of Law appeared first on Law Street.

The UVA Law Supreme Court Litigation Clinic is headed to the Supreme Court next term to defend Anthony D. Elonis, the New York man who posted rap lyrics to Facebook describing how he would kill his estranged wife. (If you’re not familiar with the case, click here to read my take on it.)

The main question in Elonis v. United States centers on First Amendment rights–when do threats made online become true threats, which aren’t protected by the First Amendment? Specifically in Elonis’s case, the court will be examining Facebook statuses in which he posted threatening “rap lyrics.” Select UVA Law students will take a stab at presenting Elonis’s defense.

The UVA Law Supreme Court Litigation Clinic is a one year program offered to third-year law students. Admitted students earn eight credits through participation, but even more valuable is the experience they gain. Once accepted to the clinic, students actively participate in live cases and must meet high expectations.

Working in teams, students handle actual cases from the seeking of Supreme Court review to briefing on the merits. Classes meet every week to discuss drafts of briefs and other papers students have prepared for submission to the court. Students will be expected to identify candidates for Supreme Court review; draft petitions for certiorari, amicus merits briefs and party merits briefs; and attend mootings and Supreme Court arguments.

In addition to providing invaluable experience to our nation’s future legal force, the UVA Law clinic grants students the opportunity to work on a pivotal case. The Supreme Court will debate whether Elonis’s Facebook posts can actually fall under the category of true threats–meaning that he intended to carry out the actions he wrote about. But Elonis’s lawyers artfully defended his case by stating he was rapping, therefore claiming First Amendment protection.

One of the clinic’s instructors, John P. Elwood, described the case as highly relevant because of our increased reliance on electronic communication. Furthermore, he made the point that electronically communicating with strangers may lead to miscommunication more often. Elwood says the ambiguity surrounding true threats has been a mess since the 2003 Virginia v. Black case, in which the Supreme Court attempted to create more specific guidelines for defining them.

I maintain my opinion, this guy is scary–if I were the ex-wife he had threatened I’d want a sense of security and protection too. There may be UVA students who also sympathize with her, but are defending Elonis with the clinic. Unfortunately for them, as a lawyer you don’t always get to choose who you defend. A lawyer’s duty is to defend her client to the fullest extent of the law, regardless of her personal beliefs. It will be valuable for those students to learn that lesson early, because sometimes it’s a hard pill to swallow. For example, when Hillary Clinton was a court-appointed attorney in 1975, she defended a 41-year-old man who was accused of raping 12-year-old girl. It must have been tough, and her political foes are now using it to attack her, but the important thing is that she did her job as a lawyer. The UVA students may have the opportunity to practice that kind of ethical dilemma when they argue on behalf of Elonis.

Elonis v. United States is the eleventh case the UVA clinic will defend in the Supreme Court since its establishment in 2006. And while the academic and legal experience is highly valuable, one other aspect should not be forgotten–legal ethics. That’s exactly what sets the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic apart from the rest–practicing legal ethics in a pivotal case. These twenty-somethings are in for quite a ride; their participation in our highest court could make history!

The University of Virginia School of Law staff did not comment as of press time.

—

Natasha Paulmeno (@natashapaulmeno)

Featured image courtesy of [Mmw3v via English Wikipedia]

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 UVA Law Clinic Takes on Controversial Anthony Elonis Case appeared first on Law Street.

You know what I find hilarious? Incompetence. Seriously, it’s one of my favorite things. Especially when it’s political incompetence. Although to be fair, I probably only find it funny because it keeps me from getting too depressed over the current state of American politics. Are y’all curious as to what my favorite political incompetence moment was this week? Well, it was the incident where Virginia Republicans bribed a Democratic state senator by offering jobs to him and his daughter. By doing so, they gained a majority in the Virginia State Senate. Getting that majority may mean that the attempted Medicaid expansion that Gov. Terry McAuliffe has been working on will be derailed. Confused? Me too. There’s a lot going on here. This issue has a bunch of layers. More specifically, a bunch of layers of incompetence. Let’s break them down.

The Incompetence of Phillip “Sure I’ll Accept a Bribe” Puckett

Let’s work from the inside out. In this case, this first layer of incompetence involves now-resigned Senator Phillip “sure I’ll accept a bribe” Puckett. A Democrat from southwestern Virginia’s Russell County, Puckett received an interesting offer from members of the Virginia GOP. According to inside sources, Puckett was in consideration for a job as Deputy Director of the State Tobacco Commission and his daughter has been waiting around to be confirmed to a federal judgeship. The deal, allegedly, was that they would finally get approved if Puckett resigned. So…he resigned.

Although much-deserved backlash has led to Puckett’s announcement that he won’t be seeking the Tobacco Commission job, it seems that his daughter will get her appointment after all. And the Republicans will get what they wanted — Democrats won’t control the Virginia Senate, which likely means that Medicaid expansion in the state is dead. If this is all true, which it seems to be, I have just a few words for Puckett.

Sounds about right. Because if Puckett did take a bribe to leave his elected position as a state senator, he is a selfish bastard. People elected him based on his beliefs. And when you’re elected by the people…well then you work for the people. That means those voters are counting on you. That means that you probably shouldn’t let them down over your own selfish desires. If you wanted a job that you could leave without letting people down, you probably shouldn’t have become a public servant. Maybe Puckett left for some other reason; it does happen. But it’s still a crap move. Because at the end of the day he let down people who count on him.

And on the issue of Medicaid expansion, there were a ton of people who desperately could have used his help. As the Washington Post pointed out, there are about 3,000 of his constituents who have no health insurance. People who could have had their lives changed by Medicaid expansion. Puckett owes every single one of them a damn apology.

The Incompetence of the Virginia GOP

This award goes to the Republicans who bribed him — although incompetence is probably not the right word, because their plan did actually work. Instead, let’s call it nastiness. This is not our political process. Our political process relies on everyone going out and voting. And then after we’ve voted we have elected officials, and hypothetically we’re done there. We do this cool thing where we get to vote them out if we want to, we just need to let them serve out the term first. In some places, we can even recall our elected officials.

You know what we can’t do? Be giant babies and bribe them. I mean I guess we can, because Virginia Republicans just did. But we shouldn’t. It’s cheap, it’s obnoxious, it’s immature. And guess what? It’s also wrong.

The Incompetence of Everyone Who Doesn’t Value Compromise

And that brings me to our last layer of incompetence. It’s a big one. A huge one, actually. Because it’s all of us.

Yup, you. All of you. And me too, if we’re being fair. Without sounding prematurely ancient here, I remember growing up when compromise was a good thing. In school we learned how to compromise to end fights between friends. At home, I learned how to compromise with my parents so we all got what we wanted. And I remember a time when the word “compromise” wasn’t a synonym for evil when used in a political context the way it is now.

We disagree over Medicaid expansion, OK. While I have my own personal feelings about the issue, I recognize that there is a valid argument to be made for the opposing side. But this would all be a hell of a lot easier if we didn’t assume that our politicians can get exactly what they promised us. Because they can’t. They can’t stick to their guns so concretely that compromise becomes impossible. As we learned this week, when that happens you get crap like Puckett accepting a bribe.

So yeah, these layers of incompetence include us too. Let’s reclaim the word “compromise.” Let’s make sure this is the last time we facilitate an environment in which a bribe is a real possibility. Because otherwise, our elected officials will try this again.

—

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 of [Torbakhopper 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 VA Senator Accepts Bribe & Sells Out Constituents, Incompetence Abounds appeared first on Law Street.

How many of you remember Emi and Hannah, my super cute friends who live in Virginia? Last time we saw them, they were cautiously excited about the prospect of Va. striking down its gay marriage ban.

Well, they’re pretty happy right now. U.S. District Court Judge Arenda Wright Allen struck down the state’s prohibition on same-sex marriage just in time for Valentine’s Day. Yay!

Congratulatory baby goat kisses for Emi! Courtesy of Hannah R. Winsten.

I promised y’all (that one’s for you, Southern readers) that we’d check in with Emi and Hannah again as this case progressed, and I wasn’t about to disappoint you. Seriously — as soon as news about Judge Wright Allen’s decision dropped, I started getting social media requests for a follow-up story about these two lovebirds. Apparently everyone agrees with me that they’re the cutest.

So! I asked Emi and Hannah what their reaction to the news was, and it took over a week for them to respond! Don’t worry, though, they had a good reason. Here’s what Hami (celebrity couple name-merge suggestions?) told me:

“I think I’ve been avoiding sending you a ‘response to the news’ because I’m still waiting for the other shoe to drop,” said Hannah. “With everything on hold as the opposition appeals, my pessimist side is waiting until something ‘real’ happens until it commits to any sort of celebration.”

Hannah and her cat are only mildly amused. Courtesy of Hannah R. Winsten.

LOL GUYS. Hami was totally right. Literally 15 hours ago, The Virginian Pilot reported that appeals have been filed. Le sigh.

Appeals were filed on behalf of Norfolk Circuit Court Clerk, George Schaefer, and State Registrar of Vital Records, Janet Rainey — two Virginia court clerks who don’t like to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. And, since Judge Wright Allen delayed implementation of her ruling until after all appeals have been heard, same-sex marriage still isn’t actually recognized in the state of Virginia. Thanks, guys.

But, for all the irritation and inconvenience this delay is causing, it’s also providing us with some serious entertainment value. The reasoning behind the opposition’s anti-gay-marriage stance is truly hilarious.

If Hami’s pig Alice wasn’t busy being so cute, she’d be laughing so hard right now. Courtesy of Hannah R. Winsten.

The lawyers trying to stem the tide of Southern gay weddings are citing Virginia’s 400-year tradition of heterosexual marriage as a reason for upholding the ban on same-sex marriages. They’re just not traditional enough to be allowed, apparently.

You know what else is in Virginia’s 400-year tradition? They’ve got an impressive history of blocking school integration in favor of racial segregation, stopping interracial marriage, and denying women the right to attend the Virginia Military Institute. And that’s not even mentioning the Native American genocide that essentially served as Virginia’s debutante ball.

Also, SLAVERY.

Hami’s cats are throwing some major shade for the obvious omission of SLAVERY. Courtesy of Hannah R. Winsten.

Let’s all take a moment and collectively laugh (to keep from crying) at Virginia’s ridiculous attempt at painting its traditional history as something to proudly preserve. Come on, guys, you’re better than that.

But maybe they’re not, because it actually gets worse. The super awesome attorneys representing Schaefer and Rainey are also arguing that marriage should only be granted to couples who can procreate. By this reasoning, tons of existing, straight marriages would be considered null and void. Couples who are infertile, who include a post-menopausal woman, or who just plain old don’t want to have kids would all be locked out of the marriage club.

This is just getting silly.

Almost as silly as Emi in a corn suit. Courtesy of Hannah R. Winsten.

Amid all this ridiculousness, it would be easy to get discouraged. But Emi and Hannah have it all in perspective.

“While this ruling could make life a lot simpler for Emi and me, it doesn’t mean that magically everything is fixed for queers in this country,” said Hannah. “I’ll be happy to have our marriage recognized and to get some of the very practical legal elements that go along with that, [but] this isn’t by any stretch of the imagination the final goal. Homophobia isn’t over any more than sexism is over or racism is over or classism is over.”

PREACH. Courtesy of Hannah R. Winsten.

Right on, lovebird. Marriage is just one piece in a giant and complex puzzle, in which queers, women, people of color, and poor people are systematically marginalized in the U.S. I’ve written a ton about why marriage is kind of a shitty deal, and about how fucked queers still are, even if marriage equality is achieved. Wedding bells don’t change the fact that we’re statistically more likely to be unemployed, impoverished, and incarcerated than our straight counterparts. These are still giant problems.

And non-queers, or super privileged queers, sometimes forget about that.

“I actually had one of my lovely, kind, straight friends make a comment along those lines,” said Hannah. “[T]hat once gay marriages are legal and recognized throughout the country, the ‘war’ will have been won.”

Nope. Courtesy of Hannah R. Winsten.

Not so, loves. The war will be far from over. Until queer kids have stopped dominating the homeless population, until trans women of color stop getting murdered, until gay-bashing stops being a thing the war won’t be over.

In the meantime, though, let’s all shop at Heart Moss Farm and laugh at Virginia’s ridiculousness to keep from crying, OK?

—

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.

All images courtesy of [Hannah R. Winsten]

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 Our Favorite Gay Couple in Virginia Might Have a Legally Recognized Marriage Soon! appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this week, Bob McDonnell, a former Virginia Governor, and his wife, Maureen, were indicted on 14 counts of public corruption based on improper gifts he received. Most of the expenses were gifts from Jonnie Williams, the CEO of Star Scientific, a tech-based nutrition company.

According to the indictment, McDonnell and Williams met after McDonnell was elected Governor. Allegedly, Williams offered to help cover the expense of Maureen’s dress for the inaugural ball, helped pay for McDonnell’s daughters’ weddings, invited the McDonnells to a vacation at his home, and gave a Rolex engraved with the phrase “71st Governor of Virginia.”

In return, the McDonnells allegedly assisted Williams with research Star Scientific was doing regarding a product called “antabloc.” McDonnell himself met with various Virginia officials to tout the product, and pushed for it to be further researched and tested.

McDonnell and his legal team claim no wrong has been done in this case. In a statement released after the indictment, McDonnell acknowledged the fact he received gifts and donations from Williams, but said that nothing he did was illegal because he never used his capacity as Governor to help Williams in return.

He stated, “I repeat emphatically that I did nothing illegal for Mr. Williams in exchange for what I believed was his personal generosity and friendship. I never promised – and Mr. Williams and his company never received – any government benefit of any kind from me or my Administration.”

McDonnell’s logic would suggest that a politician can receive any gift or benefit from a donor or supporter, and so long as that politician does not help the donor in return, no harm has been done. And in a way, he may be right. It isn’t unusual for highly influential people with a lot of money to give some of it, be it in the form of sports tickets, a vacation, or just a check, to politicians.

But is that really what happened here?

In the McDonnells’ case, these “gifts” were ongoing, lasting for nearly four years. And if the facts in the indictment are correct, McDonnell started promoting Williams’ product and company during that same time period.

One would be hard-pressed to find a reason that someone who starts donating large amounts of money and goods to a politician during his election campaign, and continues to donate to that politician throughout his time in office, wouldn’t expect something in return.

But even if the donor didn’t expect something, it seems even less likely that a politician accepting gifts worth so much money wouldn’t feel some kind of obligation to that donor. That could be part of the reason politicians are supposed to report all of their assets, gifts and donations included, at each year’s end. So if McDonnell did no wrong in this case, he would have had no problem reporting any stock he owned in Star Scientific on his annual records.

But apparently his wife did. According to their indictment, Maureen contacted her broker in order to sell her stock in Star Scientific before the year’s end. She then repurchased the same amount of stock at the start of the following year.

The facts of this case seem to have less to do with the interactions between the McDonnells and Williams as it does the fact they took any means necessary to deny and withhold information about these gifts and donations. While the outcome of the case has yet to be determined, if McDonnell and his wife are convicted, it will be yet another example of a political power-grab gone wrong.

[Huffington Post] [Indictment] [Washington Post] [Statement]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured image courtesy of [Queen Bee via Flickr]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post When Gifts Turn to Greed: Former Va. Governor Indicted on 14 Counts appeared first on Law Street.

Good morning folks! Who’s enjoying this polar vortex 2.0? Not me!

To all of you in the Law Street D.C. office, is this really what you all do on a snow day? Inquiring minds want to know.

Thanks matthewstasoff.com!

Anyway! A bit south of D.C., exciting things are happening for the gays. At least, the gays who want to get married. Newly elected Virginia Attorney General Mark R. Herring is announcing that he finds the state’s ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional. As a result, Virginia will ask a federal court to strike it down, alongside two same-sex couples.

Am I the only one who finds it a tad bit amusing that Virginia is going to court against itself? Anyway.

This is very exciting news! If the ban on same-sex marriage in Virginia is lifted, gay couples all across the state will gain access to the gazillion benefits afforded to legally married couples. Not to mention, they can stop navigating the legal minefield that results from having your marriage recognized by the federal government, but not by the state government. That shit’s a mess.

In order to win his case, Herring will base his argument on the Supreme Court’s 1967 ruling in Loving vs. Virginia, which struck down parallel laws banning interracial marriage. According to Herring, Loving didn’t just open doors for interracial couples, but for couples of all types. In his view, Loving found that couples have a fundamental right to marriage itself, and that right cannot be withheld based on a couple’s race, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

Pretty exciting stuff.

But I’m not just excited because, obviously, yay for civil rights and an end to marriage discrimination. (Also, let’s not forget that marriage is a pretty problematic institution all to itself. Grain of salt here, people.)

I’m also super pumped because this law affects two of my dear friends—Emilia Jones and Hannah Martin.

Aren’t they the cutest? They’re the cutest. Courtesy of Hannah R. Winsten.

I met Emi and Hannah back in 2010. We all went to NYU together, and we were all big lezzies. Naturally, we ran in the same circles.

Not really. I actually met Emi once at an LGBT club meeting in September 2009, and thought she seemed cool but was too shy to talk to her. (Socially awkward lesbian moment, over here.) The following semester, we wound up having two classes together and seeing each other literally every single day of the week, so we became fast friends.

Guys, Emi was awesome. She was my college bestie that year, and I was totally bummed when she graduated.

But! Emi’s life got all kinds of fabulous when she graduated from NYU. The state of New York legalized gay marriage in June 2011 — just in time for Gay Pride — and in July, she married her longtime lady love, Hannah.

They are so cute I can’t even handle it. Courtesy of Hannah R. Winsten.

Anyway, they got married, I babysat their awesome cat in Brooklyn during their honeymoon, and then a few months later, they randomly moved to a farm in Virginia.

When I say randomly, I mean RANDOMLY. It literally felt like they were here one day, and gone the next. I secretly wondered if they were running from the CIA or something. Probably not. Anyway, they run Heart Moss Farm now, and they’re super happy, and they’re super cute.

With their adorable dog, Zach. Courtesy of Hannah R. Winsten.

But! Being married in Virginia is complicated business, as Emi told me this morning.

“We recently re-filed our 2011 taxes — after my lawyer aunt who works for the IRS suggested it — when we were forced to file as married for NYC and NY state taxes but single federally. When we got our refund, it was A LOT of money,” Emi said. “If Va. doesn’t at least recognize gay marriage, we’ll have to file separate for Va. but joint federally, which essentially means you pay tons and tons of extra taxes. It is nasty business, especially when we are not making a lot as it is.”

So, basically, if Herring succeeds in his quest to get Virginia to recognize gay marriages, Emi and Hannah will be in a much better financial situation. And that’s awesome.

Courtesy of Hannah R. Winsten.

But there are other benefits to be had as well. Most of these run along the lines of basic respect for an individual’s safety and well being–like being allowed to visit each other and make decisions if one of them lands in the hospital. That shit’s a whole lot easier when there aren’t a bunch of contradictory, inconsistent laws arguing over whether you’re legally married or not.

So basically, we’re all rooting for Attorney General Herring over here, and also for Hannah and Emi. We’ll check back in with them once the ruling goes through.

In the mean time, all you Virginians should check out Heart Moss Farm’s pasture-raised chickens at your local farmer’s market. Yay for supporting queer businesses!

What do you think about Herring’s actions and Virginia’s gay marriage ban? Tell us in the comments!

—

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 [Hannah R. Winsten]

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 Look at This Adorable Couple Who Will Be Super Pumped if Virginia’s Gay Marriage Ban is Lifted appeared first on Law Street.