YouTube is facing renewed pressure from musicians and their lawyers over the share of revenue that artists receive from the site compared to other music platforms.

The issue stems from the fact that artists receive $1 per 1,000 plays on YouTube, but $7 per 1,000 plays from companies like Spotify or Apple Music, according to the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).

Earlier this Spring the RIAA claimed that YouTube, which is owned by Google, “wrongly exploits legal loopholes” to minimally pay musicians, according to NBC News. It is able to do this because of its standing as a third-party resource, which is protected by federal laws that distance the company from what its users post on the site.

YouTube is not liable due to the “safe harbor” rules, which state that platform sites are not liable if someone uploads a copyrighted song until the copyright holder files a complaint.

“It isn’t a level playing field,” said one music executive who spoke with Washington Post on the condition of anonymity. “Because ultimately you’re negotiating with a party who is going to have your content no matter what.”

The issue has become particularly relevant since the European Union decided to crack down on the issue within its territory. Noting the “value gap” between music services, the E.U. plans to release new regulations that can close the gap and provide artists the royalties that they want. So, the battle against YouTube is heating up.

YouTube’s main argument against these claims is that it provides exposure to musicians who wouldn’t normally get that publicity. The company also notes that it already spends $1 billion in royalties each year. The company claims that if it removed music from its website 85 percent of people would flock to services that offer even lower, or no, royalties. One issue with the validity of this claim is that it is based on a study that was commissioned by YouTube.

YouTube mainly generates its revenue from advertisements and sponsored content, but that money stream has dried up to some degree in recent months. Mega corporations such as Verizon, AT&T, and Enterprise recently pulled ads from YouTube after being displeased with their ads coinciding with videos they didn’t approve, according to Recode. So even though the company has had the money in the past to pay for expensive royalties, they may not have that much extra cash in the coming years.

Artists and those representing them have ample evidence that they are being ripped off by YouTube. Irving Azoff, who has represented musicians like Christina Aguilera, told the Washington Post that one of his other clients gets 33 percent of her streams from YouTube but that yields only 10 percent of her streaming revenue.

Another example: Cello player Zoe Keating showed the Washington Post that she earned $940 from 230,000 streams on Spotify and only $261 from 1.42 million views on YouTube. She said that the YouTube money is so negligible she barely pays attention.

Another issue is that even when YouTube signs licensing agreements with music labels they are signed begrudgingly. When Warner Music Group signed a new deal with YouTube, a memo from chief executive Steve Cooper leaked out revealing his feelings on the “very difficult circumstances”–his company caved instead of continuing to pay $2 million to remove its music from the site.

“There’s no getting around the fact that, even if YouTube doesn’t have licenses, our music will still be available but not monetized at all,” the memo said.

Just as the music industry struggled to adapt to emerging software in the 1990s with the emergence of Napster and Limewire, artists are once again trying to navigate a murky situation with music and video streaming services. Whatever the European Union chooses to do going forward could pave the way for what the American industry will do.

For now, you can still enjoy your favorite music on YouTube, Spotify, Apple Music, or any number of other services, but it’s worth noting how the service you choose affects the money going into the pockets of your favorite musicians. It may not make a difference for well-known artists like Pharrell or Arcade Fire, who have both complained, but it certainly matters for less popular artists like Keating.

Read More: Streaming Music: Good Business or an Attack on Artists?

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 YouTube Faces Pressure From Music Artists To Pay Up appeared first on Law Street.

Revised Travel Ban Takes Effect Tonight

This evening, the new version of President Donald Trump’s travel ban will go partially into effect. On Monday, the Supreme Court said “okay” to parts of the revised travel ban, but will hear the case in the fall. SCOTUS aims to probe how much control a president can actually have over border and immigration issues.

The court said this implementation of the ban would not affect those who can prove a “bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” Last night, the State Department issued guidelines for how to decide such cases. It says that individuals such as step-siblings, half-siblings, parents, in-laws, and sons- and daughters-in-law are considered close family. However, grandparents, nieces, nephews, or brothers- and sisters-in-law are not.

Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen are the countries that will be affected. Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU immigrants’ rights project, said the ruling worries him, as it could create arbitrary definitions of what close family relations are.

Under revised #TravelBan taking effect tonight at 8p ET “close family” excludes grandparents, aunts & uncles, & fiancées, among others pic.twitter.com/TQY3pVFcdd

— Jim Sciutto (@jimsciutto) June 29, 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: June 29, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

YouTuber Austin Jones was charged with two counts of child pornography production in a Chicago federal court on June 13.

Jones, 24, allegedly solicited pornographic videos from two underage fans, according to a criminal complaint. In an affidavit, Special Agent of Homeland Security Investigations Michael Ploessl said Jones had communicated separately with two girls who had each identified themselves as 14 years old.

Ploessl said that during a videotaped interview with HSI, Jones waived his Miranda rights and admitted to having sexually explicit chats with the girls over Facebook in which he instructed them to make and send videos of themselves “dancing in a sexually explicit way” and performing sexual acts, despite knowing that the girls were underage.

Ploessl said Jones directed both girls, identified as Victim A and Victim B in the affidavit, to send him videos of themselves dancing in a sexual manner. According to Ploessl, Jones coached the girls on what to do, wear, and say in the videos, including telling each girl to explicitly identify her name and age at the beginning of the videos.

Ploessl said Victim A repeatedly told Jones that she was “tired and wanted to stop,” but that Jones pushed her to continue. Ploessl said Victim B also expressed her discomfort with what Jones was asking her to do, but Jones continued to pressure her, repeatedly calling her his “biggest fan.” Victim A sent Jones approximately 15 videos; Victim B sent approximately 25. According to the affidavit, several of the videos depicted Victim A and Victim B dancing nude from the waist down.

If convicted, Jones could face up to 30 years in prison.

People on social media reacted to the news about Jones. Some condemned him for “[abusing] his position as a public figure.”

dont ever say that those girls who sent austin jones those videos are at fault. he abused his position as a public figure who many young

— reanne (@plediswon) June 14, 2017

girls idolized, as a way to manipulate and guilt trip them into sending him videos. those girls were 14 years old, young gullible children

— reanne (@plediswon) June 14, 2017

One ex-fan burned some of their Austin Jones memorabilia, including an Austin Jones poster and shirt.

I used to be one of Austin Jones’ biggest fans. I met him twice. I couldn’t even look at this poster anymore, so I burned it (1/2) pic.twitter.com/UUeIbx2V5s

— sky☾ (@skylarstillwell) June 14, 2017

I also knew I could never wear this Austin Jones shirt again either, so I burned that too. ‍ (2/2) pic.twitter.com/j3guskwnDD

— sky☾ (@skylarstillwell) June 14, 2017

Another said they were not surprised by the news after similar allegations surfaced a few years ago.

Absolute ZERO shock about Austin Jones & the charges against him. I haven’t forgotten about the sketchy claims involving girls 2 years ago.

— glitterdick (@danger0usperson) June 14, 2017

These are not the first allegations of Jones pressuring underage girls to send him videos. In May 2015, screenshots of alleged messages, as well as more detailed explanations of those message interactions, between Jones and a girl named “Ashley” were posted on the website PupFresh. In that article, “Ashley” said she and Jones started talking during a Facebook Q&A at which point they began messaging one another privately and Jones asked her to send him videos of her twerking. Other women have made online posts and videos accusing Jones of similar actions, but thus far only two unnamed individuals are referred to in the complaint.

In June 2015, Jones uploaded a video on YouTube in which he responded to the accusations against him. Jones apologized for his conduct but denied that anything went beyond twerking.

“Nothing ever went further than twerking videos,” Jones said in the video. “There were never any nudes, never any physical contact.”

Jones’ case is one among a growing number of allegations against YouTubers–most of whom are white men–who have allegedly used their status as internet personalities to coerce fans and other individuals into uncomfortable situations, abusive relationships, and incidents of sexual assault and/or rape.

In 2014, at least four women came forward to accuse British YouTuber Sam Pepper of inappropriately touching them and/or sending them inappropriate messages. Three of those four women were under the age of 18 at the time of their alleged interactions with Pepper, according to BuzzFeed News.

Also in 2014, several individuals accused another British YouTuber, Alex Day, of pressuring them into sexual situations and having inappropriate relationships with fans. Day initially denied the allegations, but eventually admitted to having “occasionally manipulative relationships with women” in a Tumblr post from his account that his since been deactivated. However, Day maintained in another Tumblr post that “at no point in my life have I ever had a sexual relationship with someone under the age of consent.”

Organizations like Thorn, an international anti-human trafficking organization, are working to address the sexual exploitation of children and to eliminate the production and spread of child sexual abuse material (CSAM). In addition to providing resources for trafficking victims, Thorn is advocating for increased intelligence sharing among organizations that are fighting child trafficking to decrease redundancy and inefficiency. Thorn also communicates with people searching for CSAM to encourage them to seek help and deter them from exhibiting harmful behavior.

Ploessl’s affidavit did not say that Jones had circulated the videos he had received from the girls. While Thorn is working to end sexual exploitation of children by tracking the circulation of CSAM, it can be difficult to track CSAM that perpetrators are keeping solely for themselves.

Unlike television and film celebrities who are largely unreachable to fans, YouTubers and other internet stars often establish more personal relationships with their fans and are able to connect with their viewers in real-time thanks to social media. For many, YouTube is a community where fans and creators can have meaningful, appropriate interactions with one another. But the combination of YouTubers’ perceived relatability and celebrity status can result in some creators abusing that fan-creator relationship.

In his conversation with Victim B, Jones allegedly asked her, “do you realize how lucky you are?!?!” and told her that she needed to “prove” that she was his biggest fan. Jones allegedly told Victim B things like “I guess you really aren’t my biggest fan…..ok then” and “I’m just trying to help you! I know you’re trying your hardest to prove you’re my biggest fan. And I don’t want to have to find someone else,” according to the affidavit.

By reinforcing the idea that they should be placed on a pedestal and worshiped, some celebrities have forced fans into situations in which they do not or cannot consent to. If the allegations of YouTubers manipulating and abusing their fans are any indicator, increased accountability within the YouTube space is a necessary step in ending certain internet personalities’ predatory behavior toward vulnerable, underage fans.

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 YouTuber Charged With Child Pornography Production appeared first on Law Street.

Instagram is the worst app for your mental health, according to a new study released by the U.K.’s Royal Society for Public Health (RSPH).

Researchers surveyed nearly 1,500 14 to 24 year olds and found that heavy usage of the photo sharing app led to poor body image and sleep, as well as higher levels of anxiety and depression.

.@YouTube only net positive platform for mental health whilst @Twitter – @facebook – @Snapchat & @instagram all net negative #StatusOfMind pic.twitter.com/E95Ob2D1vp

— RSPH (@R_S_P_H) May 19, 2017

Although “FOMO”–aka the “fear of missing out”–may not be a real a mental condition, it has been shown to take a serious toll on young people; the survey found that users who spent more than two hours on social media were more likely to report poor mental health, increased levels of psychological distress, and suicidal ideation.

The #StatusOfMind report explains:

This phenomenon has even been labelled as ‘Facebook depression’ by researchers who suggest that the intensity of the online world – where teens and young adults are constantly contactable, face pressures from unrealistic representations of reality, and deal with online peer pressure – may be responsible for triggering depression or exacerbating existing conditions.

“Instagram easily makes girls and women feel as if their bodies aren’t good enough as people add filters and edit their pictures in order for them to look ‘perfect’,” one survey responder explained about the app.

Snapchat, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube were found to be similarly damaging to mental health, counteracting positive effects like self-expression, self-identity, and community building.

Here is the @instagram profile that led to it being ranked worst for young people’s mental health and wellbeing in our report #StatusOfMind pic.twitter.com/9SbfoQwMY1

— RSPH (@R_S_P_H) May 19, 2017

Even with all of the negative side effects, quitting social media altogether can be can be extremely hard for users, according to Shirley Cramer, chief executive of RSPH.

RSPH and the Young Health Movement are now calling on social media companies to:

• Introduce a pop-up heavy usage warning on social media
• Identify users who could be suffering from mental health problems by their posts, and discretely signpost to support
• Highlight when photos of people have been digitally manipulated

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 Is Instagram Wrecking Your Self Esteem? appeared first on Law Street.

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

Outrage After Flint Residents Receive Foreclosure Warnings

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

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

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

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

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

— Arthur Delaney (@ArthurDelaneyHP) May 3, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

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

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

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:

Woman on Trial for Laughing During Jeff Sessions’ Confirmation Hearing

A female activist who was arrested back in January during Jeff Sessions’ confirmation hearing will stand trial. Desiree Fairooz laughed at one point during the hearing and was subsequently arrested. Prosecutors decided to pursue charges this week. Officer Katherine Coronado arrested Fairooz, 61, for laughing when Senator Richard Shelby said that Sessions’ record of treating all Americans equally is well-documented. According to Coronado, the laughter was loud enough to disrupt the hearing.

Another protester escorted out of Sessions hearing. Her original offense appeared to be simply laughing. pic.twitter.com/p6lWzBVFRW

— Ryan J. Reilly (@ryanjreilly) January 10, 2017

Fairooz said her laughter was an involuntary reflex to what she heard. And many people expressed their support of Fairooz, saying it was understandable to laugh, as Shelby’s statement was not particularly accurate. In fact, Sessions was rejected as a federal judge in 1980 over his views on race. Fairooz is charged with “disorderly and disruptive conduct” and faces up to a $500 fine and six months in prison if convicted.

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 3, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

YouTube features a “restricted mode” that is supposed to make the content that it displays family friendly. You would think that just means no violent or sexual content. But it seems like the filter often sorts out content made by or for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, and over the weekend many users complained about the issue. Some of YouTube’s biggest stars posted screenshots of what their feed looks like in the restricted mode.

Just looked at my videos with the “restricted mode” on. Seeing a bit of a theme here…

LGBT+ content not safe for kids @YouTube? pic.twitter.com/KnhayE4h1y

— fiona (@neonfiona) March 16, 2017

On Sunday, YouTube said that this filter only affects videos with sensitive content, such as politics, health, and sexuality. But some users called its bluff. Singer-songwriter duo Tegan and Sara, two sisters who are both gay, said that several of their music videos disappeared in the restricted mode. The pair pointed out that the only gay content in the videos is them.

If you put @YouTube on restricted mode a bunch of our music videos disappear. I checked myself. LGBTQ people shouldn’t be restricted. SAD!

— Tegan and Sara (@teganandsara) March 19, 2017

Many users didn’t accept YouTube’s explanation that it was looking into the problem, or that it only affects a small group of users. But the video sharing website has always maintained that the LGBTQ community is important and did so again on Sunday evening.

A message to our community … pic.twitter.com/oHNiiI7CVs

— YouTube Creators (@YTCreators) March 20, 2017

Transgender YouTube star Gigi Gorgeous is one of the people whose videos were blocked, and she said that maybe her clips describing her transition were the reason. But, she said, those videos could be very helpful for young people struggling with their own gender identity, who might not know that there are more people like them out there and are looking for role models.

Some people pointed out that the censoring of innocent videos featuring LGBTQ personalities could help increase stigmatization for young gay or transgender people who look to the internet for advice or inspiration. YouTube described the filter as “an optional feature used by a very small subset of users who want to have a more limited YouTube experience.” Apparently the restricted mode relies on users “flagging” certain posts, so it’s not farfetched to believe that some people with anti-gay sentiments are sitting there flagging posts that upset them.

On Monday, YouTube tweeted again that it’s looking into the issue, but many people want more answers about how it could prevent this from happening in the future.

Glad u guys are looking into your mistake. But perhaps u should also share how u will determine what is “sensitive” and will b restricted? https://t.co/ZARor0Lf1E

— Tegan and Sara (@teganandsara) March 20, 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 Why is YouTube Restricting LGBTQ Content? appeared first on Law Street.

An American YouTube star says he was kicked off a Delta Air Lines flight after several passengers said they felt “uncomfortable” with him speaking to his mother in Arabic on the phone.

Adam Saleh, 23, recorded an emotional video of himself as he and a friend were escorted from a Delta flight bound for New York. In the video, white passengers can be seen waving and saying “bye” as Saleh leaves.

We got kicked out of a @Delta airplane because I spoke Arabic to my mom on the phone and with my friend slim… WTFFFFFFFF please spread pic.twitter.com/P5dQCE0qos

— Adam Saleh (@omgAdamSaleh) December 21, 2016

Boycottdelta https://t.co/3tbPMSH9rH

— Adam Saleh (@omgAdamSaleh) December 21, 2016

The video has been retweeted over 480,000 times.

“I’m about to cry right now,” says Saleh in the video. “Because we said a word in a different language and there’s six white people against us bearded men.”

While most of the passengers kept quiet during the exchange, one nearby passenger spoke up for the men, saying: “That is insane. That is so crazy. Why are they being kicked off? Why are those white people complaining about them speaking a different language. I’m so upset.”

After being removed from the plane, Saleh continued to update his Twitter followers on the situation.

We are still stuck at the airport and Delta has not given us any info. They keep telling us to wait. Please spread the word #BoycottDelta

— Adam Saleh (@omgAdamSaleh) December 21, 2016

UPDATE: Delta just brought the police to speak to us.

— Adam Saleh (@omgAdamSaleh) December 21, 2016

UPDATE: We’re being security checked AGAIN right now.

— Adam Saleh (@omgAdamSaleh) December 21, 2016

Eventually Saleh was able to rebook the flight and leave on a different airline.

UPDATE: were now on another flight with a different airline heading to NYC after being checked for 30 minutes. We land 5:50pm in NYC

— Adam Saleh (@omgAdamSaleh) December 21, 2016

Delta later confirmed that there had been an incident in a statement that read:

Two customers were removed from this flight and later rebooked after a disturbance in the cabin resulted in more than 20 customers expressing their discomfort. We’re conducting a full review to understand what transpired. We are taking allegations of discrimination very seriously; our culture requires treating others with respect.

However, many people question the video’s authenticity.

Saleh, who is of Arab heritage and Muslim faith, is a self-described “professional idiot.” He has 1.6 million subscribers to his TrueStoryASA YouTube channel, and over 2.2 million subscribers on his Adam Saleh Vlogs channel, which  frequently feature “prank” videos. In fact, in a recent plane-themed prank video, Saleh tricked viewers into thinking he stowed away in a piece of luggage.

#DeltaAirlines Hey, @Delta get your lawyers cracking on this. Adam Selah does airplane pranks and hoaxes for a living. pic.twitter.com/MwfSRLJfG1

— White Christmas (@whiteguyspeaks) December 21, 2016

If we find out that @omgAdamSaleh committed yet another hoax to smear an airline, Delta should sue and other airlines should ban him.

— (((AG))) (@AG_Conservative) December 21, 2016

This isn’t the first time that Delta has been accused of racial profiling. In October, flight attendants refused to let a black female passenger  assist in an in-flight emergency because they didn’t believe she was a doctor.

And in July, a Muslim couple returning home from an anniversary trip were forced off a flight and back into Paris, because their appearance caused a passenger discomfort.

Since the incident, the hashtag #BoycottDelta began trending on Twitter.

She deleted the tweet to mail them instead but well done @halsey #BoycottDelta pic.twitter.com/OSbL9GP5w1

— C. (@fightinqdestiny) December 21, 2016

iconic @storeaa pic.twitter.com/BLIVrabJgP

— Lauren Chanel Allen (@MichelleHux) December 21, 2016

the fact them people on the plane were cheering and waving ‘bye’ disgusted me. this makes me lose faith in all humanity. #boycottdelta

— Benny (@Beno_ldn) December 21, 2016

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 YouTuber Says He Was Thrown Off a Delta Plane For Speaking Arabic appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, Donald Trump released an infomercial-like video aimed at the American people, describing what he will do when he takes office, on Youtube. He has kept pretty quiet since winning the election two weeks ago; apart from a few appearances in the media he has mainly focused on setting up his new government and has declined holding news conferences. In the video, Trump talks straight into the camera while reading from a script, and seems far more contained than when speaking during his campaign. He didn’t insult anyone, didn’t get fired up, and didn’t even mention the immigration promises he spoke so widely about on the campaign trail.

.@transition2017 update and policy plans for the first 100 days. pic.twitter.com/HTgPXfPWeJ

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 21, 2016

Trump did use his slogan, “Make America Great Again,” but he emphasized that he wants to do that for “everyone – and I mean everyone.” He said his main principle is putting America first, whether it is “producing steel, building cars or curing disease, I want the next generation of production and innovation to happen right here, in our great homeland: America–creating wealth and jobs for American workers.”

The one concrete action he mentioned was to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which he called a potential disaster for America. About energy he said that he will get rid of restrictions on the production of American energy, like shale energy and clean coal, to create “millions of jobs.” But he didn’t explain how this would be possible or describe what restrictions he meant. He wants to protect America from cyber attacks and “all other forms of attacks.” The only thing he said about immigration was that he will investigate all abuses of visa programs.

That Trump chose to speak to the people through an online video and utilize social media rather than traditional media may be because he always seems to be in a fight with some media outlet. Early Tuesday morning, he tweeted that he had cancelled a scheduled meeting with “the failing” New York Times because they had changed the terms for the appointment. “Not nice,” he wrote.

I cancelled today’s meeting with the failing @nytimes when the terms and conditions of the meeting were changed at the last moment. Not nice

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 22, 2016

But only a few hours later the meeting was back on track, after the Times was clear that it hadn’t changed any rules.

The meeting with the @nytimes is back on at 12:30 today. Look forward to it!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 22, 2016

A spokeswoman for the Times, Eileen Murphy, said that they had no idea that Trump was cancelling the meeting as no one contacted the newspaper; the change was only revealed through Trump’s personal tweets. She also said that it was the Trump team that tried to change the terms of the meeting, not them. No one is really sure what’s going on with Team Trump, but having a president that prefers communicating via social media exclusively is certainly a modern phenomenon.

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 Donald Trump Outlines Plan for First 100 Days in Office in Youtube Video appeared first on Law Street.

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

Bolivian Government Won’t Take Bill Gates’ Chickens

Bill Gates, billionaire and philanthropist, has made it his life’s mission to provide aid to impoverished countries. In his most recent efforts, he planned to donate 100,000 chickens to the country of Bolivia, as a part of an initiative called Coop Dreams.

But the response he received was less welcome than expected. The minister of land and rural development in Bolivia told The Financial Times: “[Bill Gates] does not know Bolivia’s reality to think we are living 500 years ago, in the middle of the jungle not knowing how to produce. Respectfully, he should stop talking about Bolivia, and once he knows more, apologize to us.”  Ouch, need some ice water for that burn, Bill?

via GIPHY

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 16, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

In a five-minute long YouTube video called “No Regrets,” Ted Cruz seems to be declaring that he will be back sooner than expected. The video is a goodbye from Cruz’s campaign staff and features smiling (and crying) people, Mr Cruz himself, and campaign manager Jeff Roe. And a very filmic, melodramatic soundtrack.

Jeff Roe talks about having no regrets, even if you lose, and calls his experience a “nearly regret-free campaign.” He says that Cruz didn’t lose…only the campaign for presidency did. Ted Cruz officially dropped out of the race on May 3, but will now spend his days preparing for the 2018 Texas Senate election, which he filed to run in on May 11.

Cruz praises his campaign team and with tears in his eyes calls it the best in the world, saying, “…At the end of the day, you will look in the mirror and be proud of having been a part of this team.”

The video ends very ominously (or perhaps hopefully for some), with the message “To be continued.”

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 Ted Cruz Says Goodbye to his Campaign in Nostalgic 5-minute Video appeared first on Law Street.

Bad Lip Reading features one of the simplest yet most entertaining concepts on the internet. A Youtube channel run by an anonymous creator, it takes videos of celebrities, politicians, and movie trailers and dubs in ridiculous things for the speakers to say. Bad Lip Reading has long been spoofing this year’s crazy cast of presidential candidates, but its rendition of Bernie Sanders’ and Hillary Clinton’s last debate in New York is one of the best yet. Check it out below:

One of the highlights is when Bad Lip Reading graduates from just dubbing in silly things for Sanders and Clinton to say, and moves on to spoofing Sanders’ hand motions as well, by having him play a game of charades called “Time to Act.” Prompts included “you ask the waiter for the check” “you see a bee” “prostate exam” “timid Napoleon” and “your hand is a baby bird, your fingers are the beak.”

In the spot, which features more Sanders than Clinton (perhaps because of his more characteristic charisma and hand gestures) the Vermont Senator also takes a break from the debate to sing a quick song, “Why is it creepy to juggle in bed? When God gave us hands, and God gave us balls, and God gave us beds?”

Bad Lip Reading has certainly been having plenty of fun this election cycle, like with this interpretation of Republican hopeful Ted Cruz’s words:

Or this nonsensical version of the first Republican debate back in the summer of 2015:

As the primary contests yield nominees who will inevitably face off many times  before the general election, Bad Lip Reading will probably have even more fantastic fodder. I, for one, can’t wait.

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 Bad Lip Reading Takes on Latest Democratic Debate appeared first on Law Street.

Let’s play a game. I want you all to close your eyes and imagine a land in which a power vacuum has led to a number of semi-qualified possible leaders vying for power. They spout a wide range of opinions, come from different lands (including one that’s pretty far north), talk about walls a lot, and have been waging a very long and drawn-out battle to rule their country.

Now open your eyes.

What did you imagine? If it was either A) the 2016 primaries or B) “Game of Thrones,” you are correct.

Now given those clear similarities, it was only a matter of time before someone made a fantastic 2016-inspired “GOT” mash-up. That day has come, with the Donald Trump-themed “Winter is Trumping.”

Essentially, the mash-up’s creator just edited Trump’s head onto the bodies of various “GOT” characters (it may or may not be a coincidence that many of the bodies belonged to the fantasy show’s most notorious villains.) The dialogue is a combination of real statements made by the Republican primary frontrunner, and real dialogue from the show.

The video was created by Huw Parkinson, of “Insiders,” an ABC political talk show in Australia. It was posted over the weekend on YouTube, and has quickly gone viral. The mash-up mostly focuses on Trump’s border policies, which seamlessly (and weirdly) fit with many issues in Westeros, including Daenerys Targaryen’s attempt to find a home for her people, and the “Wall” that keeps wildings from entering Westeros’s northern borders.

To be fair, I guess this isn’t the first attempt at a comparison between the craziness that is the 2016 primaries, and George R.R. Martin’s wildly popular book series/hit TV show. After all, here’s a Daenerys Targaryen and Hillary Clinton comparison. Thrillist did a great GOP/GOT crossover as well, entitled “Republican Candidates, Paired with their ‘Game of Thrones’ Equivalents,” and plenty of other outlets have done similar pieces. But, in my opinion, “Winter is Trumping” is my favorite combo yet–its laser-like focus and simple message takes the cake.

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 Winter is Trumping: Donald Trump Meets “Game of Thrones “ appeared first on Law Street.

The Iowa caucuses were on Monday and I, for one, am still experiencing a political hangover. It seems like so far the 2016 election cycle has been dragging on for a really long time, and we still have nine months to go before we actually even vote in the general election. It may be that general feeling of political exhaustion that inspired a hashtag to start trending today: #BetterWaysToElectPOTUS. The hashtag appears to have been originated by pop culture Youtube show Midweek Minute, hosted by a comedian named Will Presti.

While some of the submissions are serious, many are based on fantastic, non-sensical suggestions that really could spice up the 2016 race as it stands. Check out some of my favorite submissions below:

Buzzfeed quiz #BetterWaysToElectPOTUS

— Taylor Baxter (@itsTaylorBaxter) February 3, 2016

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 #BetterWaysToElectPOTUS: Has Campaign Fatigue Set in? appeared first on Law Street.

Youtubers Benny and Rafi Fine, otherwise known as “The Fine Bros,” can attribute much of their internet empire’s success to their React series, in which they record and upload videos of kids, teens, adults, and elders hilariously reacting to different things. The series is so successful in fact, that on January 26, the brothers announced plans to license their version’s format for other video makers. But surprisingly they’ve decided to abandon that plan a week later after coming under fire for attempting to trademark several phrases using the word “react.”

Originally Benny and Rafi’s plan was to launch an initiative entitled “React World” that would act as a licensing umbrella for people looking to create their own videos using the bros’ model and graphics. This was designed to prevent people from illegally copying their popular format. However, the problem came when they tried to take it a step further by submitting several trademark applications using the word “react,” in an attempt to control the brand name.

Below is the original video explaining “React World,” followed by the response video to the controversy.

The reason this angered so many people is that react videos comprise a large video subcategory on Youtube, and many feared that allowing the Fine Bros these trademarks would give the pair unfair power in policing the genre.

Officially unsubscribed from FineBros. Can’t believe the greed and selfishness of them.

— Daz_black (@daz_black) February 2, 2016

Someone: *uploads a video to YouTube titled “my partner reacts to my marriage proposal* TheFineBros: pic.twitter.com/DLzQwehQRl — Common Gay Boy (@CGBPosts) February 1, 2016

But in summary should the fine bros have the trademark “react”?
No. No one should have that kind of power over youtube, especially them.

— Steven Williams (@Boogie2988) February 2, 2016

After acknowledging concerns, the pair released a message on the publishing platform Medium late Monday night apologizing to fans and saying,

We realize we built a system that could easily be used for wrong. We are fixing that. The reality that trademarks like these could be used to theoretically give companies (including ours) the power to police and control online video is a valid concern, and though we can assert our intentions are pure, there’s no way to prove them.

As a result, they’ve decided to rescind all “React” trademarks and applications, discontinue the React World program, and release all past Content ID claims. Still, that hasn’t stopped hundreds of thousands of subscribers from unsubscribing. Before the controversy the Fine Bros main account had 14.3 million subscribers, but now that number is down to just over 13.7 million. These huge losses have been widely mocked by critics of the proposal, with some even going as far as livestreaming the channel’s subscriber losses.

The Fine Bros have lot more subscribers in the last 2 days than most YouTubers gain in 2 years. They really messed up. — SullyPwnz (@SullyPwnz) February 1, 2016

It’s pretty clear that the Fine Bros made a huge mistake attempting a T-Swift styled trademark takeover, but they’re not entirely wrong for wanting to license their popular content. Copyright infringement is serious problem in creative fields, but there is a difference between copying someone’s entire format and partaking in the genre. Perhaps, with a better explanation this scandal could have been avoided, but then again, attempting to trademark common phrases is generally met with difficulty.

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 The Fine Bros Abandon “React” Trademark Attempt After Backlash appeared first on Law Street.

YouTube is a form of media that’s in many ways built on creativity–from reaction videos to remixes to fan tributes, YouTube is  home to many adaptions of other works. But whether or not those types of videos are legal has long been a hot topic of debate. YouTube itself is now getting involved and backing the principles of Fair Use, which protect adaptions, by offering legal and financial support to some content creators who have been targeted by particularly predatory takedown notices.

Fair Use is the legal doctrine that allows the use of copyrighted material in certain circumstances. As defined by YouTube it includes uses like criticism, commentary, educational purposes, or news reporting. YouTube also lays out other factors that usually go into deciding whether or not something can legally be deemed Fair Use–pointing out, for example, that the use of shorter clips tend to be decided as Fair Use more often than longer clips. Additionally YouTube explains how to determine if a use is “transformative,” usually a big sticking point for courts asked to decide Fair Use questions, stating:

Courts typically focus on whether the use is ‘transformative.’ That is, whether it adds new expression or meaning to the original, or whether it merely copies from the original. Commercial uses are less likely to be considered fair, though it’s possible to monetize a video and still take advantage of the fair use defense.

Despite the fact that this is all a fairly normal and accepted definition of Fair Use (although instances are usually decided on a case-by-case basis) some YouTube users are continually subject to copyright infringement claims under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). While that act was originally created to prevent piracy, it has been used in abusive fashion in some cases. The process for DCMA-based takedowns has become automated, making it harder for content creators who are affected to fight them.

So, YouTube has decided to pay some legal bills and offer legal support up to $1 million in instances where there are “clear fair uses which have been subject to DMCA takedowns.” For example, YouTube will provide support to the Ohio Chapter of Naral Pro-choice, a pro-choice advocacy organization. They were given takedown notices after using a clip of a committee meeting in a video criticizing local law makers in a video posted to YouTube. Another example of a type of video that YouTube will help to protect is a series made by Constantine Guiliotis, who debunks instances of UFO-sightings. While he uses others’ clips, he does so in a way that should be considered Fair Use.

YouTube explained its motivation for helping those who have been targeted by the takedown notices. YouTube’s Copyright Legal Director, Fred von Lohmann, stated: “we’re doing this because we recognize that creators can be intimidated by the DMCA’s counter notification process, and the potential for litigation that comes with it.”

Fair Use certainly is a tricky gray area–and there are certainly many cases in which copyrights need to be protected and plagiarism and piracy run rampant. However, abusing the DMCA also isn’t the answer. By aiding those who deserve it, YouTube draws a fair line between potential abuse on both sides.

Read more: Fair Use: Is it Really Fair?

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 YouTube is Standing up to Copyright Bullies and Protecting Fair Use appeared first on Law Street.

Many people would recognize actress Mila Kunis who is probably best known for her role as Jackie on “That ’70s Show.” She’s now engaged to Ashton Kutcher, and has appeared in a number of movies including the critically acclaimed “Black Swan,” and she voices Meg Griffith on “Family Guy.” Kunis grew up in the Ukraine, and was friends with a girl named Khristina Karo, now a “singer.” When they were seven years old, Kunis allegedly stole a chicken from the Karo family chicken farm. Now Karo is suing Kunis under claims of emotional distress that arose out of the chicken theft.

Karo apparently had one favorite chicken misleadingly named “Doggie.” Kunis also loved to play with Doggie, and when the actress was over one time, Doggie mysteriously went missing. According to Karo, the nefarious 7-year-old Kunis owned up to the chicken theft, saying to her friend, “Kristina, you can have any other chicken as a pet, you have a whole chicken farm.”

Karo claims that sought therapyafter this betrayal. When she moved to Los Angeles, the memories of her supposed friend’s theft came back to her, and she entered therapy once again. She claims that this emotional distress is preventing her from pursuing her dream of being a successful singer in the United States. She’s now suing Kunis for $5,000, which seems to be a pretty low request given that Kunis has an estimated net worth of $30 million, and her fiancé has a net worth of over $140 million.

The lowball request would seem to indicate that either Karo is sincere–which is unlikely, but possible–or that she’s doing this for the attention. Given her hopes of becoming a singer, this news pretty much screams publicity stunt.

If you’re interested in Karo’s music, check out her newest song, “Give Me Green Card,” below.

It also contains the immortal line, “Mr. Immigration Officer it is Kristina Karo with a K. A K, K. You know, like Kim Kardashian, only with talent.”

Karo’s publicity stunt does seem to be working, at least to some extent. Her YouTube clip of “Give me Green Card” had almost half a million views when I watched it. I can almost guarantee you that it wouldn’t have nearly that many had news outlets not picked up the story of her lawsuit against Kunis.

It’s pretty doubtful that this lawsuit will actually go anywhere, but Karo certainly seems to have gotten what she is looking for–“Give me Green Card” is sure to get really annoyingly stuck in all of our heads.

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 Mila Kunis Sued Over 25-Year-Old Ukrainian Chicken Theft appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday the European Union’s antitrust chief hit Google with a double whammy. The EU formally accusing the multinational company of abusing its web dominance to the detriment of its competitors, as well as announcing it would begin officially investigating whether Google’s Android smartphone software forces phone makers to favor the company’s own services and applications.

In a press release issued by the EU, Google was accused of diverting web traffic in the European Economic Area from its rivals to favor its own products and services, particularly when it came to shopping websites. The statement warns that this kind of business practice hinders its competitors‘ “ability to compete, to the detriment of consumers, as well as stifling innovation.”

Anti-trust laws are meant as an economic safeguard to promote fair competition which benefits all consumers, while also preventing any one business from getting too big and becoming a monopoly. If the EU finds Google in violation of the anti-trust laws, the internet search giant will be forced to completely change the way it does business overseas and could also face a fine up to $6 billion.

According to the New York Times, the European Commision will also be launching an alternate investigation into Google’s “monopolistic” mobile business practices. The EU is trying to see if phone makers who want to use Google’s Android operating software–including Google owned applications like Youtube–are in fact contractually obligated to give those applications prominent features on their mobile devices.

Margrethe Vestager, the European Union competition commissioner, was quoted in the New York Times saying:

Smartphones, tablets and similar devices play an increasing role in many people’s daily lives, and I want to make sure the markets in this area can flourish without anticompetitive constraints imposed by any company.

Google responded to the investigation in a blog post Wednesday writing:

While Google may be the most-used search engine, people can now find and access information in numerous different ways — and allegations of harm, for consumers and competitors, have proved to be wide off the mark.

In 2013, the United States’ Federal Trade Commission investigated Google for similar complaints but closed its investigation, deciding not to take any action against the company even though the investigation found similar issues of search bias.

This time around the EU will have to prove that Google deliberately buries better search results, expanding beyond just e-commerce, in favor of its own company sourced content, although defining what qualifies as “better” could be tough. Subjectively speaking, Google’s actions may not actually be anti-competitive, but rather a better optimization for what consumers actually want.

Google now has 10 weeks to officially respond to the EU’s complaint, where they could settle the matter. If not, a lengthy court battle is an almost guarantee.

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 EU Goes After Google with Anti-Trust Charges appeared first on Law Street.

For bubbly blonde girls like myself, YouTube is an amazing tool. Within it lie countless videos of wondrous hair curling, and cat eye and contouring tutorial videos. As I watch the Carli Bybels of the world teach me how to enhance my cheekbone structure, there’s always a little music in the background to keep it interesting.

YouTube knows the importance of music inclusion in these online masterpieces. This week the social video platform launched a new feature in the YouTube Audio Library that detects and reacts to the music uploaded in these videos.

Before this feature, when a YouTube guru (or any video uploader, for that matter) created and uploaded content, the Content ID system would attempt to detect whether copyrighted music was being used. If copyrighted music was indeed found, the artists would decide whether the piece should be blocked from sharing, the audio should be muted, or in the cases where there was money to be made, whether advertisements would be attached to the video.

With this new feature, uploaders are given a heads up. They can see what will happen to their video with any given song. Though they still have little control of the outcome, having the information beforehand means quicker uploads and hopefully even more content for the more than 1 billion users who visit YouTube each month.

For anyone wanting to upload some clips without the hassle of any of this, YouTube offers many 320kbps tracks and sound effects, royalty-free.

But what does this move tell us (besides that there may be more makeup how-tos)?

Every day, more and more average users share content. These are children, adults, tech nerds, and technologically challenged people. They go on Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, Vine, Tumblr and Flickr. They have intellectual property at the tips of their fingers, probably every hour.

Companies, as we saw last week with Facebook, need to be clearer about the legal aspects of sharing content and provide services that make it easier for everyday users to enjoy, share, and interact with copyrighted material. Instead of merely listing a bunch of rules and instructions in the legal section of its Terms of Policy, YouTube is being proactive and providing an online infrastructure that does the work for us.

More companies should look to YouTube as an example of how to play IP offense instead of defense. The results are inarguably win-win: user experience is enhanced, artists are protected, and the entire process is streamlined. As users, it’s important for us to take note of subtle changes like this one as they not only alter our navigation of these sites, but provide us with a signal in this Information Age: IP knowledge is power, people!

The post YouTube Simplifies Copyright With New Feature appeared first on Law Street.

Sign into your Facebook or Twitter at any time and you will see YouTube video after YouTube Video that promotes some sort of political message — from feminist videos about reclaiming our bodies to videos from those in support of the Second Amendment. These videos are increasingly effective and everyone is capitalizing on the immense word-of-mouth profitability that can come from a simple “like” or “share” on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, or Tumblr.

What used to be a playground for grassroots campaigns is now a major part of marketing for non-profits, politicians, and everyone in between. Still, the question remains – are they working? Are we going too far? Is this the future of marketing for everything?

Why YouTube?

YouTube is the major platform for these videos, and they then go through other social media blogs and eventually end up on your phone, tablet, or laptop, where you no doubt see it from your aunts, friends, or professors.

According to the Kissmetrics Marketing Blog, more than 700 hundred videos are shared every minute on Twitter alone. Sure, a great deal of those are cat videos, cover performances, or someone dancing – but many of them are also videos that have the intent to promote social change.

Hunter Walk, YouTube’s Director of Product Management, spoke with Forbes magazine to explain the YouTube for Good team, an initiative formed nearly three years ago to make the video-sharing site more useful to activists, educators, and nonprofits, along with the ways in which the site, popular vloggers, and others can change popular public perception about YouTube from an entertainment source to an important resource in social change.

“We want YouTube to be a platform where advocacy, education and free expression live,” Walk told reporter Rahim Kanani. “Rather than have a small group of employees dedicated to philanthropy or social innovation, we want employees to think about building ‘good’ into everything we do, like making sure a new product designed for an individual user also works well for a nonprofit.”

YouTube reaches a massive number of people from ages in all areas of the country through the website itself and the subsequent social media shares. The videos seem to have a larger impact on creating actionable feelings — or instilling the thought that someone must donate, sign a petition, share the content, change their behaviors, and/or talk to politicians among other actions — than other forms of online marketing, articles, banners, ads, or hashtags.

FCKH8

Some of the most infamous social change videos come from the FCKH8 company. Its brand of social change is vulgar, in your face, and somewhat controversial. While the apparel company started with tackling homophobia, it has since gone toe-to-toe with racism and sexism. Its most recent video takes aim at the pay gap, sexual abuse, and gender roles – all things that need to be discussed. However, the way it tackled the subject — using young girls dressed as princesses engaged in f-bomb filled rants — has caused some to question whether these subjects are as damaging to their minds as the topic at hand. For sure, this isn’t a video for everyone:

“What’s more offensive?” FCKH8 asks. “A little girl saying f***, or the sexist way society treats girls and women?” But many people are asking: What’s more offensive: The way society treats women, or children dropping f-bombs according to a script, written by adults to sell T-shirts?

Karin Agnes at Time blasts the video, saying: “The problem is that this FCKH8 effort isn’t an outlier in feminism in America today. Comedian Sarah Silverman starred in a video as a woman who decided to get a sex change operation because she would supposedly get paid more as a man. What? This was an effort to raise money for the National Women’s Law Center, which ‘has worked for 40 years to expand, protect, and promote opportunity and advancement for women and girls at every stage of their lives—from education to employment to retirement security, and everything in between.’ Maybe this silly ad helped them raise money, but wouldn’t a serious attempt have been better for women?”

Online news source Sp!ked takes aim at the adults behind the video, asserting that “this just isn’t the way adults are supposed to act.” According to Jezebel, this isn’t the company’s first time in hot water — it recently went through a similar fight when it took on the topic of Ferguson in a “Hey White People!” video.

Laci Green

Sometimes it isn’t a company or a political group that is trying to incite social change, but rather a single person trying to change minds one at a time. Laci Green is a popular vlogger who talks about it all: equality, feminism, sex, consent, relationships, to name only a few topics. While the production value isn’t high and the set designs aren’t immense (in fact, the videos are usually filmed in her apartment), her words cut deeper, ring truer, and stay longer because of it – she truly seems like “one of us.”

Green has a frank style – she is going to tell you what she thinks, she’s going to back it up with facts, and she’s going to take you on headfirst if she feels like she needs to. Green was one of the major YouTubers who stood up for the victims of fellow YouTuber Sam Pepper who was accused of various cases of sexual harassment. But instead of just using it as a way to get viewers, she used it as a learning moment for her viewers and another way to discuss consent, feminism, and personal rights.

Green is a fan favorite of more than 1,000,000 subscribers. Her Sex+ channel started small, but has made an impact that runs deep through the community and with her fans. She may not scream as loud or offend as many along the way, but her steps toward social change are precisely calculated, never flinching, and growing stronger.

It Gets Better

One of the most widespread campaigns on YouTube has been the It Gets Better Project, the mission of which is to communicate to LGBTQ youth around the world that the future will get better, and that they need to band together to inspire those changes needed so that the world will get increasingly better.

From the It Gets Better Website:

“The It Gets Better Project has become a worldwide movement, inspiring more than 50,000 user-created videos viewed more than 50 million times. To date, the project has received submissions from celebrities, organizations, activists, politicians and media personalities, including President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Adam Lambert, Anne Hathaway, Colin Farrell, Matthew Morrison of “Glee”, Joe Jonas, Joel Madden, Ke$ha, Sarah Silverman, Tim Gunn, Ellen DeGeneres, Suze Orman, the staffs of The Gap, Google, Facebook, Pixar, the Broadway community, and many more. For us, every video changes a life. It doesn’t matter who makes it.”

The channel also has many fan-made entries of “real” people who have overcome issues and gone on to live happy, full lives. One extremely touching video comes from Google, where Woody from “Toy Story” tells us, “You’ll be fine, Partner.” For many, it was a Kleenex-inducing moment, but for others, it seemed too much.

One man told the Christian Post that “he was surprised and disappointed that they would use a children’s character for the project,” citing that “endorsing something that at this point children have no need to know about, it’s disappointing.”

Speaking Out Against YouTube Videos

Shortly after the FCKH8 video featuring young girls swearing debuted, it was taken down by YouTube because it violated the company’s terms and conditions. Though it was quickly reinstated, the question remains: how far is too far? With many videos never receiving more than a handful of reviews, it takes more than luck to get attention. There is even a Tumblr dedicated to stopping the company: StopFCKH8.tumblr.com, which makes multiple assertions as to why the company is “bad” for the people it is supposed to represent.

There is also a portion of the population that lives to “troll” or attack the comments, subscribers, and actual performers of these videos. Laci Green recently had an altercation with a man on Twitter in which she was called “sensitive.” The same happens in some of the comments of her videos, people coming in to personally attack both Laci and the people who comment on her videos. The comments section of anything on the internet can attract negativity, but these videos seem to draw even more people in — so what can we do? For certain, young girls, for example, having their beliefs used against them can have negative results. Still, it doesn’t make sense for uploaders to have to continually monitor comments on hundreds of videos; nor does it make sense to not have a comments section at all.

Do the negatives outweigh the positives?

Speak Out for YouTube Videos

YouTube has the undeniable power to unite forces, especially younger audiences, and the shift toward using that power for good is promising. According to Media for Social Change, “Now that YouTube Channels are slowly taking the place of the television channel, it’s become more easy than ever before for changemakers like us to put our message in front of more people. No need to woo the gatekeepers, or pay thousands of dollars in advertising dollars. No need to compete with the big boys with big resources for airtime that’s limited.” By using the platform as a source of both entertainment and inspiration, and sometimes blurring the lines between the two, YouTubers are on the cusp of a social revolution.

The responses from the various projects have been nothing short of remarkable. The It Gets Better Project has grown from a buzzworthy series of videos into an inspirational mantra for youth. They are taking famous faces and connecting them to the change, sharing the positives and the negatives, no longer hiding behind fake smiles and gimmicky stories. Laci Green has become a strong backbone for many — including young people who reach out to her for advice, support, and a shoulder to cry on.

Conclusion

In addition to the videos mentioned, there are thousands of others produced to promote social change. Many of them are not as popular as the ones that have gone viral. Many of the ones that have gone viral have done so not for the best of reasons; instead of the message being celebrated, they are reviled for the content or mocked mercilessly in parody videos.

So is there a limit to what we can do on YouTube, or should we continue pushing through the censorship and keep creating content that is available at the click of a button?

Resources

Shareable: 10 Viral Videos for Social Change – Sharable

The Point with Ana Kasparian: Can Social Media Drive Social Change?

Media for Social Change: Changemakers

Kissmetrics: The 2013 YouTube Marketing Guide

Spiked Online: The Fairytale Feminism of FCKH8

Jezebel: Little Girls Cussing For Feminism Would Be Great if it Weren’t an Ad 

It Gets Better: About the Project

Guardian: Sarah Silverman Sparks Row With ‘Sex Change’ Equal Pay Video

Stop FCKH8: FCKH8 Needs to Stop

Media for Social Change: 5 Top YouTube Channels Doing Good

Forbes: Why YouTube is the Ultimate Platform for Global Social Change

Noel Diem

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

The post YouTube for Social Change: Can Improving the World go Viral? appeared first on Law Street.

Last month fellow Law Street writer Joe Perry published a great article about Isabella Tanikumi, a writer who is suing Walt Disney Company for $250 million. For what you ask? Well, Tanikumi claims that Disney’s smash hit “Frozen” — the animated insta-classic that’s spawned a countless musical renditions (I suggest you check out this one and this one if you need a pick me up) — is based on her life as documented in her autobiography, “Living My Truth.”

This month the hilarious duo of YouTube personality Kevin and his grandma got into the Frozen game. Watch the video below to see Kevin convince his grandmother that Frozen is actually his life. Jump to the 0:25 mark to see Kevin’s grandma “recall” seeing Frozen character Ana the “ginger” at the house.

Can we not all relate to this type of conversation without grandparents? Too funny. Happy weekend!

Click here to read Joe Palmisano’s original article, “Author Sues Disney for $250 Million Claiming ‘Frozen’ is Based on Her Life.”

—

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

Featured image courtesy of [Joe Penniston via Flickr]

Chelsey D. Goff

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

The post Another Guy Claims Life is “Frozen,” But This One’s Hilarious appeared first on Law Street.

We are a self-conscious generation. We care way too much of what our peers think of us, which at times is all consuming. We crave likes on our Facebook pictures, strive for the most amount of retweets, and struggle to make our YouTube videos go viral. We seek approval so badly that we will go to great lengths just to get it; and we’re starting to cross the line. Personally, I see nothing wrong with executing a practical and thoughtful prank — what good is life if you can’t laugh, right? But there is a thin line with jokes and pranks, and a very thin line between a tasteful joke and a offensive joke. When you cross that line onto the offensive side, you’ll find it incredibly hard to come back from that.

A group of kids go to the “hood” and find strangers to pull pranks on and showcase them on YouTube: hood pranks. These “pranks” include pulling strangers’ pants up, approaching people with fake guns, pretending to steal people’s phones, and pretending to take pictures of people. The kids go to predominantly black neighborhoods because they know that these are the areas where people will react the harshest.

Of course these people are going to react with violence. They’re bitter, and how could they not be?They’ve been dealt the shittiest hand of cards of anyone in America. They’ve been ridiculed and they’ve been stepped on, and they carry a weight on their shoulders that we as outsiders can never understand. They are the minority of minorities. And these kids think it’s funny to exploit that, but it really isn’t. What some white people don’t seem to get is that we are done with being disrespected. You cannot go into a predominately black neighborhood, pick a fight, and not expect anything to happen. This isn’t the 17th century, we have a little bit more voice now.  And were going to use that voice.

We’re going to use that voice to tell you that these “pranks” need to stop. We’re going to use that voice to tell you that these “pranks” aren’t funny, they aren’t creative, and most importantly, they’re not actually pranks at all. They are intrusive and obscene acts that exploit black culture and they are useless in helping us progress as a society. I understand that we’re a conscious generation, and we feel the need to impress our peers; but there are lines. When we diminish a whole culture for the sake of some laughs, that is definitely crossing a line. And when you cross this line you completely deserve to get your ass kicked.

Mic Drop

Trevor Smith

Trevor Smith is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time. Contact Trevor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “Hood Pranks” Are Racist Attacks on the Community appeared first on Law Street.

On Sunday night, this puzzling exchange happened on American Airlines’ Twitter account: 

American Airlines Twitter via USA Today.

The tweeter in question is a 14-year-old girl named Sarah. She has since told the press that the tweet was a joke — because apparently Sarah has no idea what a joke is.

After American Airlines tweeted that they were sending her information to the FBI, she tweeted about how scared she was, and that she was “just a fangirl pls I don’t have evil thoughts and plus I’m a white girl.”  It really does seem like a ploy for attention though, given that she also tweeted to the world her number of followers and pretty much her entire experience with the fallout. She has since been arrested, and American Airlines released a statement saying, “At American, the safety of our passengers and crew is our number one priority. We take security matters very seriously and work with authorities on a case by case basis.”

Well, clearly Sarah isn’t very bright. But most people should know that tweeting terror threats at a major airline is an incredibly bad idea, right?

In actuality, since this story broke, about a dozen different people have sent similar threats to American Airlines, as well as a few have to Southwest Airlines, a completely unrelated company. And there were other inflammatory tweets sent out in support of “Plus I’m a white girl” Sarah. I can’t get over this, really. Why in the world would anyone ever think it’s a good idea to say these things. I cannot imagine that young people who are savvy enough to use Twitter don’t understand how IP addresses work. It’s really pretty easy for law enforcement to find pretty much anyone.

And this Sarah girl is by no means the only person her age to say something exceptionally stupid on the internet. There have been countless similar incidents. For example, last February, a teen from Texas got into an argument with a friend on Facebook over a video game. He ended up commenting something to the effect of “Oh yeah, I’m real messed up in the head, I’m going to go shoot up a school full of kids and eat their still, beating hearts. LOL. JK.” That young man, Justin Carter, ended up getting arrested for the comment, which was charged as a terror threat. 

And in one of my favorite cases, a few weeks ago, a particularly oblivious teenager lost her parents about $80,000. Her father, Patrick Snay, won a lawsuit against his former employer, a private school in Miami, in which he alleged age discrimination. Part of the settlement included a confidentiality clause — Snay and his wife weren’t supposed to share the information with anyone other than their attorneys and other pertinent professional advisers. But just a few days later, their daughter posted this message to her 1,200 Facebook friends: “Mama and Papa Snay won the case against Gulliver. Gulliver is now officially paying for my vacation to Europe this summer. SUCK IT.” And of course, that breaks the confidentiality agreement, and cost the family the $80,000 settlement.

There are plenty of incidents of young people getting in trouble because of the incredibly stupid stuff they put up on social media. I don’t know why that is. Maybe we don’t treat social media platforms as the fully public forum that they are. Sometimes when you’re sitting on your couch in pajamas and getting into a debate with your friends on Facebook about something stupid, it’s easy to forget that everyone can see it. Or maybe teenagers have been very stupid for years, and it’s only now that they have a microphone for that stupidity, and thus we get things like Twitter threats to airlines. Either way, let this serve as a reminder to watch what you say on the Internet. It may come back to haunt you, big time.

—

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 [Sandy 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 Newsflash: Tweeting Terror Threats is a Terrible Idea appeared first on Law Street.

I was recently scanning YouTube for content on Daniel Day-Lewis and I came across his best actor Academy Award acceptance speech for Lincoln in 2013. While watching the clip, I noticed something odd. Take a look a the first minute or so and see if you notice anything a bit off.

Notice anything? If you thought it was strange that there were no clips of the Oscar-nominated performances, then you’re in the good company of yours truly. Editors at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences removed the film footage of the actors’ performances before uploading the clip to YouTube. So, if you want to witness a short example of these excellent performances, you’ll have to settle for a few still shots of the actors in character instead.

The reason for this excising lies in contract law. When The Academy wants to show the short video montages, they must first contract with the owners of the films for permission to show the clips. These contracts usually grant The Academy the right to show the footage at the Oscars ceremony and for a one-year period after the airing of the show. Since YouTube videos generally survive longer than a year, The Academy must cut the films when they put the video up on YouTube in order to comply with their contractual obligations.

Mostly, I just wonder what purpose the one-year rule serves. I speculate that the rule emerged before sites like YouTube existed. Copyright owners of the films being nominated figured that they would grant the Oscars the right to use a video montage of their films during the show and probably created a one-year window as a generous allowance in case The Academy wanted to play re-runs. In the age of YouTube, few reasons exist why the copyright owners hesitate to grant the Oscars the right to replay the video montage forever. The Oscar video montages carry no risk that a user can somehow pirate the film and watch it illegally. Rather, the video montage appears as free publicity, inducing the viewer to seek out the film. Yet, copyright owners still insist on limiting the right to show the video montage.

The harm done to a user might be small when searching for Oscar acceptance speeches, but other shows rely more heavily on clips. For example, on a series like “Inside the Actor’s Studio,” James Lipton curates the clip selections, and they play an important part in understanding the breadth and excellence of the featured actor’s work. If you watch a YouTube version of Inside the Actor’s Studio, you will usually notice that the clips have been removed just like in the Oscars. Moreover, your experience will suffer as a result of this cropping of content.

Copyright owners should realize and respect that content has a longer shelf life in the internet age. Many instances arise where these copyright owners should grant longer licenses. Not doing so harms the user experience while doing little to prevent copyright violations.

—

Imran Ahmed is a writer living in New York City whose blog explores the legal implications of social media and the internet. Contact him via email here.

Featured image courtesy of [Martin Fisch via Flickr]

Imran Ahmed

Imran Ahmed is a writer living in New York. Contact Imran at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Copyright is Killing the Internet Viewer’s Experience appeared first on Law Street.

In recent years, social media has become intrinsically linked with daily life. From dining to retail to business to politics, almost every public figure or company uses some sort of social media. Whether it’s Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Pinterest, Youtube, or one of the many other options, social media isn’t just for individuals anymore, it’s for businesses, too. It’s estimated that 73 percent of Americans who regularly use the internet are involved in social media and networking in some capacity.

Working in social media is actually a viable and legitimate job for many people right now. An AOL jobs post from January 2014 projects that this year a Social Media Strategist will make about $61,000, require a bachelor’s degree, and points out that “the more social media followers a company has, the more their products and services are recognized.”

So, how are law firms doing with this? Well, a firm called Good2bSocial tried to answer that question this winter. Good2bSocial is a consulting firm that helps other companies expand their social marketing, particularly in the legal field. They worked together with AboveTheLaw to attempt to figure out how exactly the legal industry, particularly leaders in the industry, are doing with social media. The results were that big law firms are doing a pretty miserable job with it.

A white paper called “The Social Law Firm” by Good2bSocial was released last December, and followup articles have been released since then. The white paper itself requires a (free) subscription to Good2bSocial’s site, but if you don’t feel like reading the entire thing, I’ve summed up some important points below.

The study essentially analyzed the social media practices of the Am Law 50. It was conducted through surveys and questionnaires and an analysis of existing social media sites for each of the firms.

The study pretty much finds that while many law firms use social media, and use it extensively, they don’t use it in the most efficient or creative ways. The use of social media is described as a “token effort,” because law firms create social media sites to say that they have them, and so that they’re searchable, but don’t take advantage of the potential that those sites offer. Good2bSocial points out that social media takes real strategy separate from basic marketing. While law firms are creating substantive and interesting content, they are not using social media to promote such content as much as they could be.

Law firms have gotten that social media is important, it just really seems like they haven’t begun to understand how it works. The report states that “firms continue to view social media as nothing more than a distribution channel for firm news and press releases. This alone explains why firms achieve such low levels of engagement.” Uploading a pdf link to twitter isn’t engaging, it isn’t going to foster discussion, and it isn’t going to attract more followers.

Another mistake made by law firms, according to this study, is that they don’t have platforms in place to allow for coordination and collaboration within the firm, or in-house blogs. All of these things are not only attractive concepts for clients or potential employees, but also are helpful and engaging for current employees. The study does predict that this will all change, but that change is slow going and many firms are just beginning to scratch the surface of their social media potential.

The study does note that smaller firms are doing a better job with social media, but overall the conclusion remains that the field of law in general is lacking in social media prowess.

This begs an important question, though. Should law firms even care about social media, especially big, established firms like the Am Law 50? Social media is so crucial for places like retail stores, restaurants, or other product-based businesses because these places can attract new customers through the web. Is the same true for big law firms? Will interesting social media make clients more likely to visit that firm?

Well to be honest, I don’t know. Part of me wants to say absolutely not, these law firms have their niches and their reputations on which to rely. Engaging social media probably won’t have as large of an effect on their track record, as say, a good track record. On the other hand, though, social media can’t hurt. It could attract employees who find the idea of a collaborative social media experience within in the firm interesting. And as the business world changes, clients shopping around for new law firms may be interesting in finding lawyers who are as technologically savvy as they are.

The fact that smaller law firms are doing better with social media is very interesting. It’s unsurprising, given that I would assume smaller firms are more likely to try to actively attract new business, and are more willing to experiment with different outreach techniques.

In conclusion, Good2bSocial’s rundown was very interesting, but I don’t think social media will end up meaning that much for the Am Law 50 that were analyzed. The different nature of consumers of law services rather than other products make social media less of a necessity and more of a bonus. That being said, there’s much more to be gained by instituting a robust social media strategy than to be lost, and really, big law firms should consider getting on the bandwagon.

[Good2bSocial]

—

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 [Jason Howle 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 Law Firms Are Bad at Social Media, But Does it Matter? appeared first on Law Street.

While most of my posts concern the intersection of race and criminal law in America, I could not help but be moved to write this post on a video that has gained national attention. This video, featuring some of the Black male students at the University of California, Los Angeles, is a veritable cry for help that represents the pathos of Black males throughout most of the nation’s prestigious institutions of higher learning. Take a look at this powerful video first.

There are some stunning statistics in this video that bear repeating. Of the more than 19,000 male  students at the University, only a scant 3.3% are Black. Also, of the 48 Black male freshmen who enrolled last fall, only about 35 are expected to graduate. Some might wonder what the problem with these numbers are. They might point to the demographics of the state, or the admissions policies of the University. Or they might even go so far as to say all of the “qualified” Black males who applied got it, and there just must not have been thousands of qualified Black males applying to the school.

All of these responses are bullshit.

According to the Census Bureau, the total percentage of California’s population that is African American is 6.6%. So even if proportional representation meant true diversity [which it decidedly does not], the University would still be behind the curve. The admission’s policies of the University are of course set by the institution, and, since it is a school in the University of California system, governed by the Constitution of the State of California as a state entity. That’s where the problem lies. The video raises questions about the true meaning of “diversity” and whether Affirmative Action policies can, or even should, play a part in achieving that elusive goal.

Before November 1996, when California’s Proposition 209 passed, the public universities in California could pursue affirmative action policies consistent with the California Constitution and Supreme Court jurisprudence on the issue. The most famous case dealing with California was Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978). There, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld Affrmative Action policies in a general sense, but specifically invalidated the quota system that was in place at the time at the University of California, Davis School of Medicine. The medical school there was setting aside 16 of the 100 seats in the medical school for African Americans. The Supreme Court squarely rejected this quota system. What emerged in later cases from the Court as acceptable were Affirmative Action policies that considered race in a nuanced way and that aimed for a “critical mass” of minorities such that the diversity pursued educational goals of limiting minority isolation and tokenism.

Nonetheless, in 2009, the citizens of California decided enough was enough when it came to helping those minorities that had historically been systematically excluded from the avenues of higher education, and passed Prop. 209. This ballot initiative banned state institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity. Proponents of the the initiative considered it consonant with the Civil Rights Act in banning discrimination. However, it had the terrible effect of banning Affirmative Action policies in California’s public universities. This is how we got here.

Despite Affirmative Action being under attack across the country, officials at UCLA still want to pursue diversity. They lament the statistics highlighted in the video. But their hands are chained by the change to the California Constitution initiated by Prop. 209. More’s the pity.

Diversity is extolled as a virtue in every aspect of society, from academia to the private sector. But I ask, do they want diversity for the inherent benefit of expanding horizons and increasing cross-cultural understanding? Or do they want brown and black faces for brochures? The students in the video suggest the latter. In my own experience, having attended “diversity receptions” at BigLaw firms my 1L year, the answer is complicated. Have I felt that some of those firms truly valued diversity: yes. Have I also felt the push for diversity was an utter joke upon entering the reception and meeting the one female partner and two Black associates: yes. In higher education, diversity should be pursued even more vigorously than in the workplace. It is in the classroom that people engage in the freest flow of ideas and where one, often in close contact by living in dorm rooms with others, can most reach out and experience the life and culture of another. Having only a few token minorities does not accomplish this goal.

The sentiment portrayed in the video has been reinforced in my own experience. I attended a Historically Black College. Some of my other Black friends attended what we call PWI or Predominantly White Institutions. Yet it is often these PWIs that identify themselves as paragons of “diversity” despite many of the nation’s top state schools being mostly white. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is 66% White, for example. The University of Virginia: 61% white. The University of Georgia: 74% white. UCLA’s highest demographic is Asian. UC Berkeley: 37% Asian and 30% White. Despite the admitted mix, many of these institutions have minority enrollment in single-digit percentages. Not quite the melting pot they tout themselves to be.

More subjectively, the video illustrates the pervasive feelings of isolation that can stem from such limited minority enrollment. The men in the video make the analogy to Rosa Parks. Still more troubling can be the feeling of spokesmanship. In this instance, one must always signal that one is not speaking on behalf of the entire race. Similarly, one often encounters tokenism – the feeling from Whites that the minority was less qualified and got in solely based on race – whether or not race-based Affirmative Action policies are even legal or practiced a the institution.

The video has gained national attention and in many ways has fed the flame of the debate over Affirmative Action and the place minorities have in higher education. But have no fear, Black men out there, as the video poignantly notes, if you can play football extremely well, you can write your own ticket to just about any flagship state school in the nation.

Better start practicing, brothas.

—

Featured image courtesy of [BrokenSphere via Wikipedia]

Dominic Jones

Dominic Jones is originally from Atlantic City, NJ. He attended Morehouse College in Atlanta, Ga. followed by law school at the Washington College of Law at American University in Washington, DC. In his spare time he enjoys art, photography, and documentary films. Contact Dominic at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Cry For Help appeared first on Law Street.

Matt Cordle created a stir on the internet when he posted a video to Youtube entitled “I Killed a man.”  In the video, Cordle admits to driving extremely intoxicated down the wrong side of the highway, hitting a car and eventually killing Vincent Canzani. Cordle also said that he would plead guilty to whatever crime he is charged with in relation to Mr. Canzani’s death, and that his reason for making the video was essentially to put a real face to the serious implications of drinking and driving.  He ended the video by imploring viewers to not make the same mistake he did.

On September 11, 2013, Cordle plead not guilty to aggravated vehicular homicide. This was considered legal maneuvering by his counsel, and Cordle eventually plead guilty.  On October 23, Cordle was sentenced to six-and-a-half years in prison and the permanent suspension of his driver’s license, pursuant to Ohio law.

There is a lot to discuss here.  The first is the criminal law aspect of Cordle’s Youtube confession.  Cordle makes a point to say that he will “take full responsibility for everything he’s done to Vincent and his family…by releasing this video, [he knows] exactly what it means, and hand the prosecution everything they need to put me away for a very long time.” This is especially true in light of the fact that in criminal trials, it is the both the judge’s and defense counsel’s legal and ethical duty to make sure that the defendant knows the consequences of a guilty plea.  To that extent, it is clear that Cordle received legal advice in making the Youtube confession, as well as his actions in court.

Second, how much did the court of public opinion factor into the outcome of this case?  As of September 12, 2011, the video has been viewed over two million times.  There is a public investment in the judicial response to Cordle’s case.  The outrage that will result would be massive, especially since judgeships are elected positions in Ohio. Though this internet confession was not the sole reason that Cordle received his conviction, this unprecedented move surely played a larger role.

During the sentencing, various parties spoke on behalf of and against Cordle.  Those who supported him throughout the trial argued that he has made such an impact with his video, and acknowledgement of the severity of his actions, that the maximum sentence of eight-and-a-half years was unnecessary.  They argued that by putting a face to drunk driving, he has effectively “scared straight” those that would consider putting themselves in a similar position. Among those who took this position were Mr. Canzani’s widow and Cordle’s attorney.

Conversely, there were arguments in court that the maximum sentence was deserved because of the heinous nature of the crime, and because a viral video does not negate the loss of life that occurred at Cordle’s hands. This position was most effectively elucidated by Mr. Canzani’s daughter, Angela, who said “my father got a death sentence and did nothing wrong.  After eight and half years, Matthew Cordle will still have his whole life ahead of him, my father is never coming back.”

This case is so interesting, and I am interested in hearing your thoughts.  Was Cordle’s sentence fair? Should the video have resulted in an even shorter sentence?  Should he have received the maximum?

[Daily News] [CNN] 

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “I Killed a Man” Driver Sentenced to Six and a Half Years appeared first on Law Street.

In a recent article, Three-month ban on Skype, Viber, and Whatsapp in Sindh Proposed published by Pakistan Today, Provincial Information Minister Sharjeel Memon stated,“terrorists and criminal elements are using these networks to communicate after the targeted operation was launched.” These comments were a reflection on the media ban that took place in the Sindh province of Pakistan on Thursday, October 3rd. Over a year before this most recent ban, Youtube was also expelled from all of Pakistan after a musical group criticizing the Pakistani government made it big on the social media platform. Other forms of social media have also often been chastised for lending to unorthodox muslim ideas about reform and government separation. The domination of Islam, already prevalent, is now infringing even more into public policy and the government of the nation.

In comparison, the Facebook ban in China has not stopped the Chinese from using it and the Pakistani Youtube suppression has not fully restricted the Pakistanis; it is only more challenging to access these sites. These bans do not limit everyone in the nation, just a specific demographic. Obviously, those of high socioeconomic standing or those who possess web knowledge will be able to bypass the system. It is the general middle class populace that gets affected by these bans the most. The purpose of controlling the social media networks, the Pakistani government claims, is to limit terrorist communications. If the Youtube ban from last year still allows use, the ban on social media websites is certainly not going to restrict a group of people who have access to much higher leveled technological resources. In 2011, Osama Bin Laden was found (and killed) in close proximity to a Kabul military base, highlighting the corruption of Pakistan. The question about whether Pakistan was involved with Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations compares to the question, “did O.J. murder his wife, Nicole?”. It is hard to believe that this sort of limitation will restrain the terrorist groups from communicating, if that is what the government actually wants. What, then, does the government want from this ban?

Moving our concentration a little west, Saudi Arabia is one of the most censored countries in the world. The news, although privatized, is still regulated by the government, as heads of the stations are appointed by the government. The content of the news distributed is also heavily regulated. A 2011 governmental decree forbade media from reporting anything that countered Sharia law or anything of “foreign interests and  that undermines national security,” Saudi Arabian King Abdullah stated. Is this what the future holds for Pakistan?

The role of social media has developed into something ineffable and so ingrained into culture. Larger than life, it led the on-going revolution in Egypt, connecting people with local and public information. What’s going on? What should we do? How do we do it? — these questions were asked and answered by the Egyptian locals, creating a large-scale community of people seeking change. The revolution reflected on the power social media holds. Realizing this, in a failed attempt to stop the riots, the Egyptian government blocked the social media sites and mobile phone networks, taking away full internet access. The result was only more anger from the public. Perhaps, Pakistan is trying to learn from Egypt’s mistake by blinding their people before they widen their eyes and realize the full potential of their tools.

As of now the social media prohibition in Sindh is suppose to last three months to limit terrorist communication. Recent history and personal speculation leads me to believe otherwise.

[pakistantoday] [France24]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Jason Howle via Flickr]

Vasudha Sadana

The post New Type of Warfare: Social Media vs. Government appeared first on Law Street.