Michael Jackson. R.Kelly. Roman Polanski. All male artists who have histories of child abuse, or accused child abuse. All artists who have been successful. How much do their crimes influence their art? And how much should their success influence how we view their crimes, or accused crimes?
When Michael Jackson died, there was practically a national stand still. He was revered for his talent and his art, and the years of accusations seemed to fly out the window. An argument can be made that because he was acquitted that he committed no indiscretions, but a gut instinct (ok, my gut instinct) says that at least of those children were telling the truth as I have a tendency to trust survivors. So we, as a nation, forgot his strange past and celebrated him because he could make us dance and sing. It makes me wonder if it would have been possible to remember the songs and the dancing without celebrating the man. Can they be separated?
Roman Polanski is, in my opinion, a much more serious situation. He admitted to sexually assaulting a 13 year old girl in the 1970s and then fled to Europe before being sentenced. He has remained in Europe so as to avoid going to jail in the United States, and is now fighting extradition from Switzerland and asking high powered friends to petition the United States to drop the charges. He has a team of creative powerhouses standing behind him, dubbing his rape of a child a "little mistake" and touting the fact that he has been a successful director and his "genius" as a reason for both forgiveness and dropping the criminal charges for a crime he admitted to committing.
Polanski isn't my kind of director, but I understand that some people really enjoy his films. Is his art a redeeming power? I say it isn't. I don't think art should ever be enough to redeem someone from sexually assaulting a child. This is not only an issue of idiocy, but also one of class. What if the man who gave a 13 year old girl drugs and champagne had been a man in a trailer park or in a van - the picture we think of when we think of child abusers? I doubt folks would be rallying around him, saying that because he makes movies, his crime that he never served time for should be absolved. Then again, someone who wasn't already wealthy and privileged wouldn't have had the means to escape to Europe, purchase several homes and life a comfortable life.
Showing posts with label legal chatter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legal chatter. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Prop 8: WTF
Last week, the California Supreme Court issued a 6/1 decision to uphold Proposition 8, a ballot initiative to amend the California constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman that passed on November 5, 2008. The issue before the court was not whether or not marriage should be limited to heterosexual couples - the Court had already held that marriage rights should be extended to all couples in California - but whether or not the initiative was the proper way to amend the state Constitution. Those challenging Proposition 8 argued that adding this to the constituion was such a significant change, especially because the state had just legalized marriage equality months prior and had already issued 18,000 marriage licenses - that it should be considered a revision instead of an amendment, and thus could only be passed through a constitutional convention. The state, represented by Ken Starr, argued that it was merely an amendent and thus could be passed through a popular vote. The Court, unfortunately, agreed.
In its opinion, the Court stated that this was merely a procedural issue. That gays still have rights and that in "every other area but marriage" those rights would be protected using strict scrutiny (that they would be considered a somewhat protected class). Unpacking that phrase - "every other area but marriage" - means this: every other area but survivor rights, remedies for loss of consortium, hospital visitiation, free name changes, tax free insurance benefits and on and on and on. The idea that this is merely a narrow issue of the nomenclature of a relationship is simply not correct.
This opinion is additionally problematic because it implies that, in California, ballot initiatives can be used to avoid the protections afforded by the constitution's equal protection provisions. If a popular vote is all that is needed to amend the constitution to reduce civil rights that have already been granted, that means any number of other rights can now be infringed upon.
For the reasons listed above, this opinion has set of a wave of anger and upset in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. Not to be left off the bandwagon, the attorneys who were on opposite sides of the Bush v. Gore case have filed a federal law suit challenging the Court's decision. This is a highly risky move. Neither of the attorneys have a history of same-sex litigation. They haven't been on the front lines or part of the decades long strategies that have been put into place. Bringing this lawsuit could, should it not succeed, create federal precedent that would set the movement back in a significant way. In short: this suit could be highly destructive. Thanks, dudes, for using our movement for your glory.
In its opinion, the Court stated that this was merely a procedural issue. That gays still have rights and that in "every other area but marriage" those rights would be protected using strict scrutiny (that they would be considered a somewhat protected class). Unpacking that phrase - "every other area but marriage" - means this: every other area but survivor rights, remedies for loss of consortium, hospital visitiation, free name changes, tax free insurance benefits and on and on and on. The idea that this is merely a narrow issue of the nomenclature of a relationship is simply not correct.
This opinion is additionally problematic because it implies that, in California, ballot initiatives can be used to avoid the protections afforded by the constitution's equal protection provisions. If a popular vote is all that is needed to amend the constitution to reduce civil rights that have already been granted, that means any number of other rights can now be infringed upon.
For the reasons listed above, this opinion has set of a wave of anger and upset in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. Not to be left off the bandwagon, the attorneys who were on opposite sides of the Bush v. Gore case have filed a federal law suit challenging the Court's decision. This is a highly risky move. Neither of the attorneys have a history of same-sex litigation. They haven't been on the front lines or part of the decades long strategies that have been put into place. Bringing this lawsuit could, should it not succeed, create federal precedent that would set the movement back in a significant way. In short: this suit could be highly destructive. Thanks, dudes, for using our movement for your glory.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
You Win Some, You Lose Some: Sonia Sotomayor and Prop 8
Breaking news from the world of law this morning...
First the good news - President Obama has nominated Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. She would be the second woman on the court, and only the third to serve in the court's history. She would also be the first Hispanic person to serve on the court. Her biography is just starting to come out, but so far we know she grew up in housing projects in the Bronx, made her way through school on scholarships, and was inspired to go into law from reading Nancy Drew books and watching the Perry Mason television show as a child. Here's hoping for a quick confirmation process and another history-making moment in 2009!
And now the bad news - The California Supreme Court has upheld Prop 8, the ban on same sex marriage which passed in November. While the roughly 18,000 marriages that were performed before the ban passed, like that of our buddy Tony of Finn and Charlie are Hitched, will remain valid, the ban does explictly prohibit any new ones from being performed in the future. This is of course a huge blow to equality for glbt individuals, and to all Americans who believe in equality and justice for all. If you'd like to express your discontent, you can do so at protests across the country tonight, via DayofDecision.com.
First the good news - President Obama has nominated Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. She would be the second woman on the court, and only the third to serve in the court's history. She would also be the first Hispanic person to serve on the court. Her biography is just starting to come out, but so far we know she grew up in housing projects in the Bronx, made her way through school on scholarships, and was inspired to go into law from reading Nancy Drew books and watching the Perry Mason television show as a child. Here's hoping for a quick confirmation process and another history-making moment in 2009!
And now the bad news - The California Supreme Court has upheld Prop 8, the ban on same sex marriage which passed in November. While the roughly 18,000 marriages that were performed before the ban passed, like that of our buddy Tony of Finn and Charlie are Hitched, will remain valid, the ban does explictly prohibit any new ones from being performed in the future. This is of course a huge blow to equality for glbt individuals, and to all Americans who believe in equality and justice for all. If you'd like to express your discontent, you can do so at protests across the country tonight, via DayofDecision.com.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Iowa Is For Lovers!
On Friday, April 3, 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court held that a 1998 law that limited marriage to heterosexual couples was unconstitutional. The case, Varnum v. Brien, originated when two women applied for an Iowa marriage license and were denied because they are a same-sex couple - instead of just walking away, they decided to sue.
The Court's unanimous decision declared that the law violated the equal protection rights of the state's gay and lesbian couples. People across the country expressed disbelief that Iowa, a heartland state, was one of the first to fully legalize gay marriage. However, Iowa has a long history of taking first steps in civil rights work. They were first state to allow women into the practice of law, and were among the first to allow interracial marriage and strike down segregation.
Cheers to the six plaintiff couples who were part of the case from beginning to end, allowing their lives to be scrutinized, and to the many Iowans who showed their support of the LGBT community.
This is a tremendous step in the continuing battle for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender civil rights.
Below, two of my favorite clips about this historic decision. First, a clip from Iowa Public Television of the press conference held directly after the decision came down. Second, a homemade video from a very thankful Iowan.
The Court's unanimous decision declared that the law violated the equal protection rights of the state's gay and lesbian couples. People across the country expressed disbelief that Iowa, a heartland state, was one of the first to fully legalize gay marriage. However, Iowa has a long history of taking first steps in civil rights work. They were first state to allow women into the practice of law, and were among the first to allow interracial marriage and strike down segregation.
Cheers to the six plaintiff couples who were part of the case from beginning to end, allowing their lives to be scrutinized, and to the many Iowans who showed their support of the LGBT community.
This is a tremendous step in the continuing battle for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender civil rights.
Below, two of my favorite clips about this historic decision. First, a clip from Iowa Public Television of the press conference held directly after the decision came down. Second, a homemade video from a very thankful Iowan.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Day Without A Gay
Today marks the first work boycott launched by the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community in the United States. The mission of Day Without a Gay is to get LGBT employees to call in "gay" to work and spend the day volunteering at an organization working to further queer civil rights.
Not only will this put more hands on deck at organizations that need all the free labor they can get, it will draw attention to gay employees' worth as, you know, people and workers. Hopefully employers and co-workers will note their absence and connect the dots: "Hey, things aren't as fun/productive/smooth without Bob or Sue at work today. Wow, they are standing up for civil rights that they have been denied but I've been granted for arbitrary reasons. Gays: they really are just like the rest of us. Huh."
In an ideal situation, Day Without a Gay will create a noticable impact on straight allies and potentially change the minds of those who support hate-filled amendments such as those recently passed in California, Colorado, Florida and Arkansas. It will, at the very least, show that the community is done sitting down and accepting "tolerance" in the place of full civil rights. In other words: not being beat up (as much) and being given domestic partnerships or civil unions in a handful of states isn't enough, and we're taking action.
Not only will this put more hands on deck at organizations that need all the free labor they can get, it will draw attention to gay employees' worth as, you know, people and workers. Hopefully employers and co-workers will note their absence and connect the dots: "Hey, things aren't as fun/productive/smooth without Bob or Sue at work today. Wow, they are standing up for civil rights that they have been denied but I've been granted for arbitrary reasons. Gays: they really are just like the rest of us. Huh."
In an ideal situation, Day Without a Gay will create a noticable impact on straight allies and potentially change the minds of those who support hate-filled amendments such as those recently passed in California, Colorado, Florida and Arkansas. It will, at the very least, show that the community is done sitting down and accepting "tolerance" in the place of full civil rights. In other words: not being beat up (as much) and being given domestic partnerships or civil unions in a handful of states isn't enough, and we're taking action.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
The Time Is Now
Today cities around the country hosted protests against California's Proposition 8, a ballot initiative to ban gay marriage in California (where it had been legalized just months ago)that passed on November 4. Also passed on Election Day were similar propositions in Arizona and Florida as well as a law in Arkansas that outlaws adoption by unmarried persons (cough...gays...cough).
Arguments for gay marriage have been articulated in newspapers, blogs, and t.v.: every citizen should have equal rights, denying some citizens equal marriage rights is unfair because they pay full taxes, it is matter of basic civil rights - the list goes on and on.
This movement isn't just about marriage rights, though. Not everyone wants to get married. Not everyone will get married, even if they have the legal right to. It is about no longer placing those in the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community in the "other" category. And when people are placed in that category, it is so much easier for people to see them as diffrent - as less than. Which leads to violence. It is easy to hurt someone who you don't see as human as yourself. Or to hurt yourself when you're tired of being treated like a second class citizen.
We can't allow another Matthew Shepard to happen. Another Brandon Teena. We can't continue standing by while the gay teen suicide rate rises. The time for civil rights for EVERYONE is now.
So what can you do about it? Don't be complacent. Even if you aren't queer, even if you don't want to get married, this is something you should be concerned about. Tell your friends and family why this issue matters. Write letters to legislators. Donate funds to legal advocacy groups that are doing some of the heavy lifting around this issue, like Lambda Legal andNational Center for Lesbian Rights. Tell friends who are getting married that instead of a gift, you're going to donate to marriage equality in their name.
Boycott businesses that either donated funds directly to Yes on 8 or are in bed with groups who donated to Yes on 8:
McDonalds Corporation
Home Depot
Bonneville Radio Stations (In Chicago, they have 101.9, 100.3, 97.1, and 96.9 F.M.)
Lowes
And I'm getting really local here: Century 21 theater in Evanston.
This is a call to action - the kind we can't do on air. I'm talking to you, person who sits on their couch and thinks "Wow, this is all really messed up" and does NOTHING. Get up. Do something. We don't have time to waste.
Arguments for gay marriage have been articulated in newspapers, blogs, and t.v.: every citizen should have equal rights, denying some citizens equal marriage rights is unfair because they pay full taxes, it is matter of basic civil rights - the list goes on and on.
This movement isn't just about marriage rights, though. Not everyone wants to get married. Not everyone will get married, even if they have the legal right to. It is about no longer placing those in the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community in the "other" category. And when people are placed in that category, it is so much easier for people to see them as diffrent - as less than. Which leads to violence. It is easy to hurt someone who you don't see as human as yourself. Or to hurt yourself when you're tired of being treated like a second class citizen.
We can't allow another Matthew Shepard to happen. Another Brandon Teena. We can't continue standing by while the gay teen suicide rate rises. The time for civil rights for EVERYONE is now.
So what can you do about it? Don't be complacent. Even if you aren't queer, even if you don't want to get married, this is something you should be concerned about. Tell your friends and family why this issue matters. Write letters to legislators. Donate funds to legal advocacy groups that are doing some of the heavy lifting around this issue, like Lambda Legal andNational Center for Lesbian Rights. Tell friends who are getting married that instead of a gift, you're going to donate to marriage equality in their name.
Boycott businesses that either donated funds directly to Yes on 8 or are in bed with groups who donated to Yes on 8:
McDonalds Corporation
Home Depot
Bonneville Radio Stations (In Chicago, they have 101.9, 100.3, 97.1, and 96.9 F.M.)
Lowes
And I'm getting really local here: Century 21 theater in Evanston.
This is a call to action - the kind we can't do on air. I'm talking to you, person who sits on their couch and thinks "Wow, this is all really messed up" and does NOTHING. Get up. Do something. We don't have time to waste.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Entertainment Law
I hate clowns. I don't like animals being used for profit. That said, I've had a long standing interest in circus arts/carnival culture. This Craigslist posting is just one example of what can be done with a law degree and a focus on entertainment law....and probably the only other rad thing to come out of Arkansas besides Beth Ditto!
Little Rock Firm looking for associate with interest in circus law (Little Rock, AR)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: job-832730934@craigslist.org [?]
Date: 2008-09-08, 1:54PM CDT
Mid-sized Little Rock Law Firm Seeking Junior Associate With Interest in Circus/Carnival/Fair Law for immediate hire. According to BusinessWeek, one of the new emerging legal fields is Circus Law. There are many potential legal issues related to daily circus operations including injuries, animal safety and irresponsible carnival folk who act with a reckless disregard for Circus-goer safety. Our mid-sized firm is looking for a young ambitious attorney who will enthusiastically take on these issues and bring business to the firm
Requirements: Applicant must have graduated from an accredited law school. Applicant must have previous internship experience (no previous full-time experience necessary).
Compensation: Competitive salary. Negotiable.
In addition to submitting a resume in MS word format we request a short letter (200 words or less) detailing why you are interested in Circus Law and why you think you would be a good fit with our firm
Location: Little Rock, AR
Compensation: Competitive
Principals only. Recruiters, please don't contact this job poster.
Please, no phone calls about this job!
Please do not contact job poster about other services, products or commercial interests.
Little Rock Firm looking for associate with interest in circus law (Little Rock, AR)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: job-832730934@craigslist.org [?]
Date: 2008-09-08, 1:54PM CDT
Mid-sized Little Rock Law Firm Seeking Junior Associate With Interest in Circus/Carnival/Fair Law for immediate hire. According to BusinessWeek, one of the new emerging legal fields is Circus Law. There are many potential legal issues related to daily circus operations including injuries, animal safety and irresponsible carnival folk who act with a reckless disregard for Circus-goer safety. Our mid-sized firm is looking for a young ambitious attorney who will enthusiastically take on these issues and bring business to the firm
Requirements: Applicant must have graduated from an accredited law school. Applicant must have previous internship experience (no previous full-time experience necessary).
Compensation: Competitive salary. Negotiable.
In addition to submitting a resume in MS word format we request a short letter (200 words or less) detailing why you are interested in Circus Law and why you think you would be a good fit with our firm
Location: Little Rock, AR
Compensation: Competitive
Principals only. Recruiters, please don't contact this job poster.
Please, no phone calls about this job!
Please do not contact job poster about other services, products or commercial interests.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
