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

NAACP Issues Travel Advisory for Missouri

The NAACP has issued its first-ever statewide travel advisory for the state of Missouri. This announcement came after Senate Bill 43 passed the state legislature and was signed by Governor Eric Greitens. The new law makes it harder for employees to prove their protected class status in a lawsuit; critics, including the NAACP, say that it makes discrimination easier and dubbed it a “Jim Crow bill.”

The advisory is intended to let people of color and members of the LGBT community traveling through the state know what’s going on, and to be particularly vigilant. It cites recent instances of police brutality and discrimination in Missouri, and asks that everyone “warn your families, co-workers, and anyone visiting Missouri to beware of the safety concerns with travel in Missouri, notify members of your trade associations, social and civil organizations that they are traveling and living in Missouri at their own risk and subject to unnecessary search seizure and potential arrest, and file and seek help on any existing claims for discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and whistle blowing ASAP before your legal rights are lost.”

.@NAACP issues travel advisory for Missouri, the first in its 108-year history, after passage of “Jim Crow Bill” https://t.co/sEFbjOzQUa pic.twitter.com/N1UyXNEcqk

— New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) August 2, 2017

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 RantCrush Top 5: August 3, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

The Washington Post unveiled a new slogan this week, straight out of the trailer for a summer action blockbuster or a Harry Potter paragraph: “Democracy Dies at Darkness.”

Here’s the Washington Post’s logic about its new slogan, per spokeswoman Kris Coratti:

This is actually something we’ve said internally for a long time in speaking about our mission. We thought it would be a good, concise value statement that conveys who we are to the many millions of readers who have come to us for the first time over the last year.

As the New York Times pointed out, this isn’t the first time that democracy and darkness have been mentioned hand-in-hand by higher ups at the paper. Jeff Bezos said last year:

I think a lot of us believe this, that democracy dies in darkness, that certain institutions have a very important role in making sure that there is light. And I think The Washington Post has a seat, an important seat, to do that because we happen to be located here in the capital city of the United States of America.

Regardless of the logic–and it’s important to note that that logic does seem sound, given President Donald Trump’s relentless attack on “fake news,” and the fact that trust of the media is at a notable low–the slogan is still striking many as a tad…dramatic. And of course, it has received some mocking on Twitter:

i am critical of the washington post but if batman could say your newspaper slogan with a straight face that feels like its ok

— Oliver Willis (@owillis) February 22, 2017

wow, the washington post’s new slogan is pretty dark pic.twitter.com/6yxzZ2EC5G

— Tom Phillips (@flashboy) February 22, 2017

The Washington Post’s new tagline is pretty good. pic.twitter.com/W922lcvzim

— neontaster (@neontaster) February 22, 2017

The Washington Post has a new slogan. It’s very… metal. pic.twitter.com/k2S95AsMSD

— Thomas Seal (@TW_Seal) February 22, 2017

pic.twitter.com/96TkFdVWHs

— Matt Nelson (@Maddoxnelson) February 22, 2017

But regardless of the mocking, the new slogan got readers’ attention, and reaffirmed the Washington Post’s very laudable commitment to standing up to the Trump Administration. Still…we have to ask: you guys ok?

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 Should We Be Worried About the Washington Post’s New Slogan? appeared first on Law Street.

Throughout the election, there was one particular superficial criticism of President Donald Trump that seemed to stick–that his hands were rather small. Trump–who’s known for dealing poorly with criticism–may have taken that particular jab to heart. Because now some internet sleuths are claiming that the White House is photoshopping official photos to make Trump’s hands look bigger than they actually are.

Here’s the evidence, in gif form:

The discrepancy in hand size appears to have first been noticed by Dana Schwartz, who writes for the Observer. She tweeted:

Trump 100% photoshopped his hand bigger for this picture hanging in the white house, which is the most embarassing thing I’ve ever seen pic.twitter.com/MGTbFfdLqp

— Dana Schwartz (@DanaSchwartzzz) January 27, 2017

Schwartz, as well as some of her followers, tried to get to the bottom of what I’ve wisely decided to dub PhotoshoppedHandGate.

@DanaSchwartzzz Here, this is the absolute most precise I could get it. The color & contrast changes, but nothing moves. pic.twitter.com/zHFItu8Knx

— Christopher Keelty (@keeltyc) January 27, 2017

@DanaSchwartzzz tried to scale the photos based on their shoes (and was generous). Trump’s hand is still enormous compared to the original. pic.twitter.com/9XraoWKO8l

— Joon Lee (@iamjoonlee) January 27, 2017

Based on my (unscientific) eye Trump’s hand certainly looks bigger in the White House release. But what exactly happened? Some have hypothesized that PhotoshoppedHandGate may be similar to the “dress” phenomenon–lighting and angles are playing a trick on our eyes. And Philip Bump, from the Washington Post pretty handily (see what I did there?) debunked it on Twitter.

OK. So, this “Trump’s hand is Photoshopped” thing is nonsense.

— Philip Bump (@pbump) January 27, 2017

First, the ABC segment clearly uses a version of the photo from Getty, not a shot of the photo on the wall. https://t.co/h0JMpVsU1A

— Philip Bump (@pbump) January 27, 2017

Second, if you compare ABC shot (in preceding tweet) with image from Getty, below, they’re the same, except color. https://t.co/cbeUwuoNp8

— Philip Bump (@pbump) January 27, 2017

And here you go: A GIF that I just made. Not aligned perfectly (my fault), but the hand is the same. pic.twitter.com/N7Zii1qRMY

— Philip Bump (@pbump) January 27, 2017

So as fun as it could have been to pretend that there’s an official White House staffer dedicated to photoshopping Trump’s hands in photos…that’s almost certainly not the case. But, for a few minutes during a long week, at least we were all distracted by the possibility.

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 Is the White House Editing Pictures of Trump’s Hands?: Probably Not appeared first on Law Street.

Uh oh, today is Friday the 13th. Enjoy the end of your week, but if you’re superstitious, be careful! Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Samantha Bee Takes on Bo Bice’s Popeyes Drama

Samantha Bee introduced a new phenomenon to her viewers on Wednesday night: apparently a lot of white men in the U.S. are now experiencing “racism” and “harassment.” One example is former American Idol contestant Bo Bice, who was called a “racial slur” when he recently ordered some fried chicken at a Popeyes in an Atlanta airport. Bee hypothesized about what he could have been called, but it turns out he was just called “white boy” by one employee. Bice took this incident so personally that he broke down in tears during a Fox News segment. He also wrote an excessively long Facebook status in which he called the incident “racist behavior,” threatened legal action, tagged the local TV news station, and managed to get the young girl who worked at Popeye’s suspended from work. And in the interview with Fox News he said, “America, you should be ashamed!” Well Bo, here’s Bee’s full rant in response:

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: January 13, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

On June 12, a gunman in Orlando, Florida murdered 49 people at a gay nightclub. In response to this attack, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump seemed to fuel the fires of conspiracy during a “Fox & Friends” appearance, alluding to a greater plot involving President Obama.

Look, we’re led by a man that either is not tough, not smart, or he’s got something else in mind. And the something else in mind — you know, people can’t believe it. People cannot, they cannot believe that President Obama is acting the way he acts and can’t even mention the words ‘radical Islamic terrorism.’ There’s something going on. It’s inconceivable. There’s something going on.

He doesn’t get it or he gets it better than anybody understands — it’s one or the other, and either one is unacceptable.

The Washington Post ran a story on Trump’s comment with the headline “Donald Trump seems to connect President Obama to Orlando shooting.” Even though Trump may have stopped short of actually saying “Obama played a purposeful role in the Orlando shooting,” there’s no question that he drew a connection, which allowed listeners to speculate.

Trump has to know the effects of his comments, and the media firestorm he can set off with the shortest sound bite. Playing coy–suggesting something insane, only to recoil when he is accused of the suggestion–is an all too common ploy for Trump.

Just think back to when he claimed Judge Gonzalo Curiel couldn’t fairly rule on Trump University cases because of his heritage, only to insist that there is nothing racist about his statement. Or just a few weeks ago, when he accused Hillary Clinton of playing “the woman card,” then fiercely denied that the statement was sexist.

This pattern allows him to feed the narrative that the media is corrupt and set against him. That is why Trump revoked the Post’s press credentials, detailing his reasons in a Facebook post:

I am no fan of President Obama, but to show you how dishonest the phony Washington Post is, they wrote, “Donald Trump suggests President Obama was involved with Orlando shooting” as their headline. Sad! Based on the incredibly inaccurate coverage and reporting of the record setting Trump campaign, we are hereby revoking the press credentials of the phony and dishonest Washington Post.

Washington Post Executive Editor Marty Baron made a statement in reaction to this revocation:

Donald Trump’s decision to revoke The Washington Post’s press credentials is nothing less than a repudiation of the role of a free and independent press. When coverage doesn’t correspond to what the candidate wants it to be, then a news organization is banished, said in a statement. The Post will continue to cover Donald Trump as it has all along — honorably, honestly, accurately, energetically, and unflinchingly.  We’re proud of our coverage, and we’re going to keep at it.

Compare this behavior with Hillary Clinton’s notorious caution towards the press–such as when she drew criticism for “corralling” the press behind a rope so that they didn’t crowd her during public appearances. Trump’s distrust of the media goes even further, as he has thrown out reporters from his events.

Clearly, the Post won’t be quiet about Trump’s campaign, although it may now be harder to get a scoop as quickly as other outlets.

Sean Simon

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

The post Trump Revokes Washington Post Press Credentials appeared first on Law Street.

When John Miller speaks, he’s discursive, darting from topic to topic in a whirlwind fashion. He often says “uh” and “you know,” a cross between a silver-tongued car salesman and any confident suit and tie on the streets of Manhattan. Miller has an oft-used pseudonym, a monosyllabic word that is fixated on the side of giant buildings from Chicago to Las Vegas, Panama to Bali: Trump. Or rather, Miller is an alter ego of Trump’s, a faux-publicist the presidential hopeful would apparently pose as in interviews with journalists in the decades before “The Apprentice” and closed door meetings with Paul Ryan, sharing stories about “Donald” as if he wasn’t the Don himself.

On Friday morning, The Washington Post released a recording of an interview between journalist Sue Carswell and Miller (Trump) conducted in 1991. Carswell, researching a story on Trump’s divorce for People magazine, phoned Trump’s office to ask him about his recent divorce from his first wife Ivana. Instead, she got Miller.

“He’s coming out of a marriage, and he’s starting to do tremendously well financially. As you saw, he got his licenses five to nothing the other day and totally unanimous. And he’s really been working hard and doing well. And probably, as you know, there’s a real estate depression in the United States and he’s probably doing as well as anybody there is. And frankly, he wants to keep it that way. And he just thought it was too soon to make any commitment to anybody,” Miller told Carswell when asked about Trump’s divorce.

It’s all there: the self-inflation, the hyperbole, the inability to commit.

And then there’s this gem of a story, in which Miller addresses Trump’s rumored affair with Carla Bruni Tedeschi, an Italian model at the time who would go on to marry the now former president of France, Nicholas Sarkozy:

What she was having a very big thing with Mick Jagger. And then what happened, she was going with Eric Clapton, and Eric Clapton introduced her to Mick Jagger, and then Mick Jagger started calling her, and she ended up going with Mick Jagger. And then she dropped Mick Jagger for Donald, and that’s where it is right now. And again, he’s not making any commitments to Carla either just so you understand.

Let’s examine a little nugget that was buried in that beautiful anecdote: “And then she dropped Mick Jagger for Donald.” That’s right up there with “Mexico will pay for it” and “ban all Muslims.”

And considering recent comments (and the fact that he denies being the man posing as Miller), perhaps President Trump’s cabinet will be entirely made up of John Millers–all different facets of Trump’s expertise, his deep knowledge of complex subjects, and his understanding of the scope of history. It’s a one man puppet show called “Make America Great Again,” where Trump is both puppet and puppeteer.

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 And the Oscar Goes To…Donald Trump as John Miller! appeared first on Law Street.

The United States found itself facing criticism from the international community in regards to concerns about its human rights record this week. The criticisms were levied during the U.S.’s second universal periodic review in front of the United Nations’ Human Rights Council. Listed among the concerns that other nations presented about the U.S.’s human rights record included the American failure to shut down the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay and the prevalence of sexual violence against Native American women. But one of the biggest focal points of the criticism was the culture of police violence and militarization, particularly against young black men, in the United States.

This is no surprise–during the recent flurry of media activity over the protests in Baltimore after the death of Freddie Gray at the hands of the Baltimore police, I came across a Washington Post article that posited “How Western media would cover Baltimore if it happened somewhere else.” While the writer of that piece, Karen Attiah, certainly wasn’t the only one I saw pose that question, I found her take particularly compelling, as she wrote it from the point of view of another nation’s media outlet. Take this passage for example:

Black Americans, a minority ethnic group, are killed by state security forces at a rate higher than the white majority population. Young, black American males are 21 times more likely to be shot by police than white American males.

Sounds pretty bad when it’s phrased like that, doesn’t it?

The point is that if we, as Americans, saw coverage of the racial discrimination and police conduct in this country the way that we see coverage of human rights abuses in other nations, we would be appalled and outraged. Therefore, it was no surprise to me that we received some criticism at the United Nations review.

At the same time, it also didn’t surprise me that the response that many Americans had to the criticism has been less than graceful. The main complaints appear to be twofold–some are upset that we even allowed ourselves to be reviewed by the UNHRC, calling it “farcical.” In a very similar vein, there are complaints that during the United States’ presentation in front of the council, the Obama administration even admitted to having to work on some of the aforementioned issues. There was also anger over which nations criticized us, countries including Iran, Cuba, Pakistan, and Russia. Critics of the review have been very quick to point out that those nations have very long histories of horrible human rights abuses themselves.

That’s completely true. Human rights abuses in Iran, Cuba, Pakistan, and Russia, among many other nations, are apparent, horrendous, and deserve high levels of criticism and attention. But I don’t quite get how that fact invalidates concerns about human rights abuses in the United States. Two wrongs don’t make a right–just because another nation is committing a wrong, our wrong isn’t suddenly rendered right.

Moreover, what happened to being a good example? How can we demand that other nations be accountable for their human rights abuses when we can’t even talk about ours in an open forum with humility and respect? It’s not easy to admit that there’s a problem in this country when it comes to racism and police violence. But criticizing other countries for pointing it out certainly won’t do anything to fix it. Instead, we need to work together as a nation to combat these systemic problems, and become the very role model we purport to be.

—

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 United Nations Criticizes U.S. Over These Human Rights Issues 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.

Before this week, I had never heard of Ferguson, Missouri. It’s a relatively small city–it has a population of about 21,000. But after the events of the last few nights, it’s pretty much the only thing anyone can talk about. It all started when a young black man named Michael Brown was shot and killed by a police officer. Apparently the officer had started shooting at them for some unknown reason, the two young men had run in panic, and then while trying to explain their status to the cop, Brown was shot. According to Dorian Johnson, a friend of Brown who was with him during the shooting, Brown tried to notify the officer that he was unarmed just before he was shot. Johnson claims he never once heard the officer tell them to stop, freeze, or anything of the sort. Bystanders corroborated Johnson’s claims, saying that Brown had his hands up, in a form of surrender, when he was shot.

The people of Ferguson are fed up, and they want answers. There’s a lot going on, but here are the top three things you need to know about what’s happening in Ferguson, and why they should be upsetting all of us.

Police Militarization 

The issue of police militarization is one that’s kind of flown under the radar, but it’s time we start talking about it. If you’re interested in the topic, we did an in-depth look in two parts: here and here. Here are the spark notes though–the 1997 National Defense Authorization Act included a program called “1033” which authorized the donation of extra military equipment to local police departments. The argument is that the police need these weapons because the citizens that they are supposed to deal with have access to increasingly more dangerous arms. Police are being trained and armed like soldiers to deal with their own citizens. Among the police departments enrolled in this program is the Ferguson Police Department. There’s a line between providing better technology to our officers, and creating military culture within our local police forces. The Ferguson police just showed us how shaky that line is.

Race Relations in Ferguson

Michael Brown was a young black man. At the risk of oversimplifying a very, very complicated issue, there is a storied history of race relations in Ferguson. Ferguson is 65 percent African-American, but the police force of 53 contains only three black officers. Elijah Anderson of the Washington Post points out that this phenomenon is by no means uncommon:

Ferguson’s story isn’t uncommon in the United States. Authorities often see fit to heavily police towns with growing black and poor populations, to surveil them, and occasionally to harass them in the name of a “broken windows theory” of policing, banking on such methods to control crime. 

Anderson explains how this theory goes on to breed resentment, and mistrust between communities and the police officers that are supposed to protect them. He cites a report from the Center for Constitutional Rights that found that,

Blacks and Latinos are treated more harshly than whites, being more likely to be arrested instead of given a summons when compared to white people accused of the same crimes, and are also more likely to have force used against them by police.

The issue of race and policing deserves a lot more than the sparse few hundred words I’m able to write in this article. My point though is this: this isn’t just a problem in one small town in Missouri–this is a systemic issue that can be seen all around the country. Ferguson may be the tip of the iceberg, but it’s a huge iceberg that we need to start thawing. Giving the police stronger firepower, using broken windows policing, and shooting young unarmed men cannot be the answer anymore, and Ferguson is proving that.

First Amendment Rights

There have been multiple incredibly concerning First Amendment rights issues happening in Ferguson since the protests began. At one point the airspace above Ferguson was restricted–while authorities claimed that it was to protect the protesters and police; journalists wondered if it was to prevent aerial shots of the protests. At one point yesterday, an Al-Jazeera America team was tear-gassed, and a St. Louis Alderman was arrested.

Things really came to a head last night though–two rather prominent journalists were arrested for being in a McDonalds. Wesley Lowery of the Washington Post, and Ryan Reilly of the Huffington Post were in a McDonalds charging their phones, when they were approached and told to move along. They had been taking pictures of the cops who had walked into the McDonalds, a pretty normal journalistic move. They were packing up their belongings, but apparently not quickly enough, because they were arrested, and assaulted. The police refused to tell them why they were arrested, or give them any other information.

Here’s a disturbing video of Lowery’s arrest:

Video of my arrest: http://t.co/baiYPQGfc7/s/ZHkX

— Wesley Lowery (@WesleyLowery) August 14, 2014

Reilly after the fact pointed out:

I’m fine. But if this is the way these officers treat a white reporter working on a laptop who moved a little too slowly for their liking, I can’t imagine how horribly they treat others. And if anyone thinks that the militarization of our police force isn’t a huge issue in this country, I’ve got a story to tell you.

In some ways, the most horrifying part of the story wasn’t that Reilly and Lowery were arrested, it was the way that the police responded to the news that they had just arrested two reporters. Matt Pierce, an LA Times Reporter tweeted:

I just called Ferguson police chief to ask about @WesleyLowery and @ryanjreilly, told him what I knew. His response: "Oh, God."

— Matt Pearce (@mattdpearce) August 14, 2014

To clarify: The "oh, God" was delivered in a tone of shock.

— Matt Pearce (@mattdpearce) August 14, 2014

Ferguson chief tells me @WesleyLowery and @ryanjreilly's arresters were "probably somebody who didn't know better."

— Matt Pearce (@mattdpearce) August 14, 2014

That’s pretty disturbing. The police chief didn’t care that he arrested two innocent men. He cared that arrested two journalists. His statements indicate that had they just been two men sitting there charging their phones and working on their laptops, it would have been ok that they were detained and assaulted for no good reason. The police chief isn’t sorry that he arrested those men, he’s sorry that he got caught.

I believe strongly in freedom of the press–so what happens in Ferguson worries me deeply. Because here’s the thing, the other two topics I wrote about above–police militarization and race relations–are so much more important than the fact that reporters got arrested. The national discussion should focus on those topics until we’re blue and the face and we hopefully have some sort of solution. But when journalists aren’t allowed to cover what’s happening, and we have to have side discussions about the freedoms that so many of us take for granted, we get derailed. And that’s a big problem.

This is a perfect storm of police militarization, race relations coming to a head, and freedoms being revoked willy-nilly. I’m not going to pretend that I’m on the ground there, or that I have the full story, or even any of the answers, but as an observer I’m outraged. And readers, I hope you are too. Because unless we all stand together to say what is happening in Ferguson is plain wrong, we’re headed down a dangerous path.

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 We Should All be Upset About What’s Going on in Ferguson: Here’s Why appeared first on Law Street.

I’m not a violent person. Some may even say I’m compassionate. But if I were to witness the defenestration of George Will, I cannot deny that I would crack a smile.

What has caused such a drastic shift in my nature? Well, the columnist recently published an article in the Washington Post spewing his opinion that colleges and universities “make victimhood a coveted status that confers privileges.”

Let’s let that sink in. A Pulitzer Prize winner, Princeton educated, syndicated columnist has stated that being a victim of sexual assault is a privilege. When my eyes were first subjected to that sentence my body went into shock, as I was not sure if I should shriek, gag, or faint from the ignorance. Perhaps the Fox News Kool-Aid is stronger than previously suspected, but this is new realm of revolting that I didn’t think possible.

One of Will’s arguments against the “supposed campus epidemic of rape” is the statistic of women who will be sexually assaulted while in college: 1 in 5. Although the government, nonprofits, and research institutions support the statistics he attempts to discredit, the evidence is still not enough for good ol’ George. Dr. Jen Gunter broke down (accurately this time) the “pesky arithmetic” Will complained about. I recommend that Will and all those who agree with his assessment give it a thorough read.

Schools are more frequently including trigger warnings at the beginning of lectures and assigned readings in an effort to alert people who may self-harm or have their post-traumatic disorder triggered by exposure to controversial readings and assignments. Will scoffed at this concept, belittling individuals who would benefit from the notices. The mocking of trigger warnings was the garnish atop a cocktail already soiled with hebenon.

Four Senators sent a letter to Will challenging his position on the issue of sexual assault. He issued a rebuttal, including this nonsensical gem:

“I think I take sexual assault much more seriously than you do.”

Really? Is he truly going to claim that he takes assault more seriously than four Senators who have dedicated their careers to helping victims; not downplaying the trauma they have endured like he has done?

As an Ivy-educated, affluent white male in America it may be fair to deduce that George Will hasn’t faced too many incidents of sexism or racism throughout his experiences — but that is neither my place nor anyone else’s to presume. Just as I do not know his personal history, he is not aware of the thousands of victim’s experiences he was so quick to demean.

Although offensive and infuriating to read, his column serves as an example of the beliefs surrounding sexual assault that continue to plague our society even when there is evidence to refute them. If any good has come from his piece, it is that the backward way of how victims are viewed is being thrust into public conversation.

I am not the first to voice my disdain for Will’s column, and likely not the last. Just last night the St. Louis Post-Dispatch dropped him due to his comments. Everywhere he turns he should be saturated with vehement rebuttals exposing the callousness of his article.

—

Alex Hill is a student at Virginia Tech majoring in English and Political Science. A native of the Washington, D.C. area, she blames her incessant need to debate and write about politics on her proximity to the nation’s capital. Contact Alex at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Scott Ableman via Flickr]

Alex Hill

Alex Hill studied at Virginia Tech majoring in English and Political Science. A native of the Washington, D.C. area, she blames her incessant need to debate and write about politics on her proximity to the nation’s capital.

The post Dear George Will: Sexual Assault Isn’t a Privilege appeared first on Law Street.

One name has been making headlines around the country since June 2013. There have been many terms used to describe him, whether you see him as a traitor or a patriot, Edward Snowden has become a well known character within the United States. His name continues to circulate the news press this week, as the government privacy board is set to release a report on Thursday January 23rd, saying that the National Security Agency’s wide spread collection of phone records, violates the law and should be shut down.  

Let us go back to the beginning, where this controversy first ignited. In June 2013, Snowden released the operations of the United State’s global surveillance program including the monitoring of both Internet and phone use of US citizens to The Washington Post and The Guardian. Rather than staying in the shadows and remaining anonymous, this whistleblower chose to take responsibility for his actions, saying, “my sole motive is to inform the public, as to which is done in their name.”

This leak of secret NSA documents spurred debate across the country. Just as Snowden had hoped, citizens have become more informed about governmental actions. American’s are now questioning the link between national security and privacy as well as wondering what else the government is going to great lengths to hide.

The NSA claims that they have the right to obtain phone records under section 215 of the Patriot Act, which states that it is within the power of the government to collect records that are relevant to terrorist investigations. However, pressure from the privacy board has caused key governing figures to question the constitutionality of this surveillance program, specifically in regards to phone monitoring.

Last Friday, President Obama announced his plan to change the system of the mass collection of phone records, shifting it from the hands of the government to a private company such as AT&T or Verizon. Along with a possible shift in power, Obama suggested a requirement of approval from the courts in order to obtain records. While the President did explain these future reforms, he maintained the idea that the government should have access to phone records if needed. Not everyone is satisfied with these changes and some would like to see an end put to the phone surveillance program completely.

The New York Times and the Washington Post have obtained the 238 page report by the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, which has not yet been released. The report calls to shut down the mass collection of phone records previously exposed by Edward Snowden. The Privacy and Liberties board in charge of protecting the privacy rights of the citizenry, admits that the program has not prevented any terrorist attacks and instead, has infringed upon the privacy of American citizens. The board further opposes the protection of the program under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which grants the government the power to use phone records in order to obtain relevant information. The privacy board argues that it is not possible to obtain only relevant information when using a tool that allows unlimited access to phone content.

The board further states that the NSA phone program is questionable in regards to both the first and fourth amendments. They turned to the 1979 ruling of the Supreme Court, stating that the police do not need a warrant to search through phone numbers or call durations. However, the board points to the fact that the surveillance being done today is on a mass scale, and is not comparable to the specific cases investigated by police.

Whether the NSA phone program will come to a complete end in the near future is not known at this time. It can be seen that there is current pressure being put on the government, in order, to make the program less intrusive on private citizens. I agree that the program must be altered, as it can be considered harmful to freedom of speech. The conversations that we have over the phone are of our own choice, which should be respected by the government. On the other hand, I do agree that if the security of our nation is being threatened based on a phone call, it is within the best interest of the public for the government to intervene. It seems that the best solution would be for the government to focus on the threatening situations at hand rather than eavesdropping on where my friends and I are meeting for lunch.

[Time] [Nationaljournal] [Theguardian] [Politico]

—

Taylor Garre (@TaylorLynn13)

Featured image courtesy of [EFF via Wikipedia]

Taylor Garre

Taylor Garre is a student at Fordham University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Taylor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Privacy Board Calls NSA Eavesdropping Illegal appeared first on Law Street.