Category Archives: law

The Presidency in a Lon Fuller Cave

Vishnu.jpg

When is a criminal act a criminal act? I remember studying R v Dudley and Stephens.  In the case, four men were shipwrecked, and with little hope of making it to land and one of the men fallen into a comatose state, two of the men decided to kill and eat the dying man in order to survive. One of the men refused to participate. The case was a precedent in establishing that necessity doesn’t justify murder. If I remember correctly, it was also a test on the reaches of the law, and whether the fact that the men were lost at sea and therefore out of the reach of legal powers, makes the law inapplicable to them during the act, much like a legal Schrödinger’s cat.

This is somewhat related to the “Case of the Speluncean Explorers” written by Lon Fuller for the Harvard Law Review. It’s a though experiment where Fuller gives a hypothetical case of cave explorers who were trapped in a cave, and in order to stave of starvation, drew lots on who to murder and eat in order for the rest of the men to survive. He wrote about five judges’ differing opinions on the case. I would not explain all of the judges’ reasoning, but one judge argued for setting aside convictions since the “murderers” in the case were out of the reach of the laws of society and thus were in a state of nature and under natural law. Under natural law, rules are governed by reason, and it is only reasonable to kill one person in order for the rest to survive. The purpose of the law forbidding murder, which is deterrence, also doesn’t apply to them under such a state because A. they were in an extreme situation B. it could be argued that preventing one murder would lead to more deaths, and C. which legal authority would prevent the murder in such a state?

This brings me to the current issue of the growing case against Donald Trump. In order to hide possible collusion with Russia during the election, Trump may have committed several indictable offences already, committing crimes to cover up a crime. He may be tried for intimidating witnesses and obstruction of justice when he tweeted about James Comey after firing him and Sally Yates during her questioning. He may be guilty of obstruction of justice when he inquired about his own investigations, asked for the investigations to end, and fired people investigating him. And even asking for a loyalty pledge from his own investigator is obstruction of justice and a criminal conspiracy should Comey have agreed to pledge to Trump. There’s also him tweeting about the supposed tapes, which if they do exist, could also implicate him in whatever crime he’s trying to blackmail Comey with, or would make him guilty of obstruction of justice and destroying evidence should he say that he got rid of the tapes. This is just for the past couple of days. It doesn’t take into account the original issue of collusion with a foreign government as well as conflicts of interests regarding his businesses.

Now, with all of these low-hanging fruit, would someone try to remove Trump from office? I’m afraid the president of the United States is in Lon Fuller’s cave as well. The country is in an extreme state, and just like the laws of society could not touch the men in R v Dudley and Stephens while they were at sea or the men in the cave, no one can touch Trump unless the people in power are willing to look for a crime. By virtue of him being in power and with the Republican majority being tied to their party, Trump might as well be killing and feeding on people while stuck in lawless isolation. He could hand the nuclear codes and all state secrets to Vladimir Putin while kissing him in the mouth during a press conference and it won’t be an offense unless people are willing to call it so. So far, he seems to have gotten away with so many offenses but people are willing to look the other way and not punish him the way other normal citizen would rightly face consequences in a civil society (“grab them by the pussy” anyone?). Trump is out of the reaches of law at the moment. Someone please bring him back to where the rest of us are before he causes any more damage.

 

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Making Out with Canada Again

walrus

There are times when I wish I could kiss Canada in the mouth. This is one of those times.

Apparently, the government of Manitoba has been very supportive of refugees crossing the border from the United States into Canada. The small town of Emerson, instead of being worried about terrorist boogeymen, is more worried about refugees hurting themselves and not being prepared for the cold weather. The RCMP stated that they will devote resources to refugees coming in from the states should their numbers overwhelm the small town. Leaving the US is not a criminal act, and they will be screening individuals instead of turning them in.

Of course, I don’t know how accurate that last part is. Leaving the US is not a criminal act, but I believe illegal immigration to Canada is still punishable by deportation. It is a problem that many people believe will only get worse with the new Trump administration. There was a poll that found a majority of Canadians believe that illegal immigrants should be deported. Ironically, that poll also found that Quebecers, with their rather “close-minded” reputation, overwhelmingly believe that illegal immigrants should get some form of accommodations instead of simply being deported. But then again, I don’t know how accurate that poll is now especially with Trump as president down south and our Prime Minister announcing that Canada will be welcoming refugees.

And speaking of illegal immigration down south, there are reports of ICE agents rounding up illegal immigrants in the US, with some having lived in the States for years and have kids who are American citizens. Some government agents are even following school buses in order to arrest illegal immigrant parents. Great job, guys (especially, you family values folks)! Instead of constructive solutions, you break families apart. How will broken families improve the economy? How will they make your country safer?

So God bless Canada. We may not be as tempting to move in to as the United States, but we care for those who try to come in and be Canadians. I should know, I am an immigrant. And even though it was difficult for the first couple of years, most Canadians welcomed me as neighbor and a friend. I remember even without taking my oath of citizenship, some friends already regarded me as a countryman.* But that was back then, and that was in Canada. It must take tremendous courage now to be an immigrant in the United States, especially if you’re a minority or a Muslim. God help and protect you.

 

*Of course there are some people who will never see me as a full Canadian even if I was the product of generations living in the country. I will always be asked, “yes, you’re Canadian, but where are you REALLY from?” I’ve written about this soft racism several times, and so have other writers.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave Pirate Grandma Alone

Octopus.jpg

I’ve been reading about this 86 year-old woman from Ontario who was warned for illegally downloading a game and is basically being extorted to pay $5000. Problem is she’s never heard of the game Metro 2033. The company contacting her is a collection company calling in behalf of intellectual property holders. They’ve identified her only through her IP address, which doesn’t take much to realize, could’ve been used by other people beside herself, whether it be secured with a password or not. All the activities done on one specific IP address does not translate to activities done by the IP address holder. It’s just that simple.

Going after people this way is a rather simplistic way of dealing with a more complicated problem, if it is a problem at all. Looking at the specific Ontario case, if the woman pays the collection company $5000 as punishment for her “crimes,” what exactly gets accomplished? The real culprit still gets away with their copy of the illegally downloaded software. It is unclear whether they will stop their illegal activity. The woman who paid the fine learns absolutely nothing. There will be a brief period of people not downloading software illegally, while some will still continue stealing software regardless. And the software and the company who produced it will get bad PR for their actions. I tend to agree with the expert on the CBC story (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/notice-and-notice-system-internet-copyright-enforcement-settlement-1.3823986) the whole thing is basically a cash grab for the software company and the collection agents. Many people are unaware of their rights, and they can basically be intimidated by these companies to pay up for crimes which they may or may not have committed.

But again, this is a complex issue and the dragnet collecting tactic is simply outdated with the current technology at hand. Many people get away with stealing content using VPNs or with borrowed Internet access. That makes the theory of IP addresses being linked to only the subscribers’ identities very flimsy.

Does Internet piracy truly hurt companies however? An article from Lifehacker (http://lifehacker.com/how-piracy-benefits-companies-even-if-they-dont-admit-1649353452) argues that piracy actual does benefit companies. Looking at ‘Game of Thrones’ for example, the show being the most pirated show on the Internet has helped boost its own popularity and the head of Time Warner even admits that it leads to more people eventually subscribing to their service. Of course, piracy is still stealing, and it must do a certain amount of damage. However, that amount of damage is very hard to quantify. And because hard numbers are hard to come by, it is very difficult to gauge whether the benefits of piracy outweighs the damage it does to a company, or does going after people like the poor woman in Ontario actually encourage more customers to buy their products instead of just lining up the company’s and the collector’s pockets in the short term. Looking at the game the poor lady was accused of stealing, Metro 2033 was critically acclaimed but sold poorly when it was released. However, it did receive a cult status. This cult status translated to much bigger sales for its sequel. Now, did piracy help it reach a bigger audience and attain this cult status? Perhaps.

I think the solution to piracy is actually developing content that is worth supporting. Taking software for example, I would gladly pay for software that is easy to install and use and would later be supported by the developers. This is something that normally wouldn’t be available with pirated software. I am paying for ease of use and continued support. Make buying software cheaper and easier compared to pirating them and you’ll reduce software piracy.

For movies, the ease of downloading or streaming content, the quality of the content itself, and the price of the content could affect piracy. People would pay for quality and for things that they genuinely care about. Many people would prefer to watch a ‘Star Wars’ sequel in the theaters as opposed to their smart devices. However, their love for the content could only bring them so far. If the price of watching movie theaters is too high, many people would rather watch movies at home… and if they’re not too invested in the movie and are merely curious, they would more likely pirate it. The same ‘Star Wars’ fan who paid top dollar in the theater would not be so keen to do the same for ‘Suicide Squad’ which got raked in the reviews by critics. Makers of the film could blame piracy for the movie’s poor performance in the theaters, but it could also blame its own quality as to why people would rather pirate it and watch it at home. Now, I’m not saying that I pirated ‘Suicide Squad,’ but nobody should be paying to see Jared Leto parade around in that ridiculous version of the Joker. It would only encourage him.

As for music, I think piracy has allowed people to download only the songs they like and not the entire album like people were once forced to. The trend was embraced by iTunes, and now people either bought only the songs they like or they would subscribe to a music streaming service. I believe both are cheaper compared to how we used to get our music. Unfortunately, this makes it harder for artists to make money from their craft. But then again, isn’t making music and marketing them cheaper these days than it once was? Also, piracy and free music could help smaller artists reach a wider audience. Once they gain that audience, it’s up to the quality of their material and the love of their audience to translate that into cash.

In any case, I hope companies stop going after old people for downloading games they have no idea they downloaded. It’s wrong and it feels really “scammy.” I actually played Metro Last Light, the sequel to the game that the old woman was accused of stealing. I remember enjoying it. Reading news like this however, it just puts a bad taste in what I once considered only as a pretty decent game.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Killing Catholics

Rat_King

The problem with Twitter is that it’s a vortex that gets you sucked in to arguments where you’re trying to convince people who have no interest in being convinced. This happened to me last night for the better part of an hour, arguing about the Philippines and their outrageous leader, President Duterte. The last time I visited the Philippines was 2011. Back then, like many people, the country’s problem with poverty is quite apparent. But the problem is not only that. At the time, I also noted that the country had a tendency to elect leaders based on populist appeal, with several people banking either on their celebrity appeal or regional political dynasties. I also noticed that there is not much concern about the separation of church and state, and thus some, if not the majority of people, don’t mind if religiously-inspired policies affect them negatively. So last night, I ended up arguing based on the Filipino Catholic background, the pretense of doing the purge for law and order, and the two-tiered justice system when it comes to Filipinos and their worship of celebrities.

I always found it very ironic that the only Catholic country in the Philippines would openly insult the leader of the Roman Catholic Church, the representative of Christ in the planet. By condoning the extrajudicial killings, the president and his followers are going against the very teaching of Jesus Christ. Love thy neighbors, thou shalt not kill, etc. I’m not a theological expert, but I always thought that one of the foundations of the Catholic Church is the concept of forgiveness. And while many of the president’s supporters are quick to defend him and forgive him for his brashness and errors as a leader, they don’t extend that same spirit of forgiveness to victims of the killings. It would seem that the country is not as religious as many people would have you believe. After all, why would the country elect and give high approval ratings to a person who promised to kill several people and so far has made good on that promise. Duterte on his campaign had two major political goals: A) kill thousands of drug dealers and users and B) reform the country into federalism in order to spread the country’s wealth and resources among its different regions. So far, he’s only killed people. Killing people is not only against the Catholic Church, it also won’t put food on people’s plate.

Now, the president claims that he is doing things for law and order. He even mused about instating martial law to quell lawlessness. Forgetting the abuse of the Marcos regime and the horrors of martial law, his supporters say that martial law wouldn’t be a bad idea; after all, it is well within his rights in the Philippine constitution as the leader of the country. Looking at the Philippine constitution, it is well within his rights. Article VII, Section 18 states that he may take command of all armed forces and suspend habeas corpus to prevent or suppress lawless violence. That’s well and good. But the last time I checked, the Philippines is still quite orderly. There is no lawless violence. In fact, it is the president who is encouraging lawlessness with statements like, “Please feel free to call us, the police or do it yourself if you have the fun… you have my support. Shoot him (the accused) and I’ll give you a medal.” Article III, Section 1 of the Philippine Bill of Rights states that “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.” Yet, people conveniently shrug when people get shot without spending their time in court, examining evidence of their guilt, or facing their accusers. There is nothing lawful about this anti-drug campaign. And as for people saying that the murder are done by phantom “killers” and not by the government or the police, and that the president regrets such extrajudicial killings, let me quote that again, “Please feel free to call us, the police or do it yourself if you have the fun… you have my support. Shoot him (the accused) and I’ll give you a medal.”

When arguing these things, I got accused of being prejudiced against the Philippines, of seeing the country as some sort of backwards banana republic and not a sophisticated metropolitan society. The problem with prejudice is that it also applies to the poor and those with drug history. The killings only seem to apply to the poor. Doing a quick search on Google, it’s not that difficult to find Filipino celebrities with histories of drug abuse. I doubt if they would be affected by this anti-drug campaign. No one is gunning for them. Drug use is often brought on by poverty. And the prejudice against the poor leads to the rather nonchalant local attitude towards the killings. Crimes against the pretty people on this page (https://kami.com.ph/29157-filipino-celebrities-involved-illegal-drugs.html) would elicit national outrage, but there’s not so much outrage when the victims are poor, young drug users and their families have to deal with the aftermath.

The most inane argument I get is that I’m not a true Filipino; I’m not in the country and thus have no say in such things. I am not familiar with their problems. True, but I am also unfamiliar with the problems of impoverished family members of drug users. While my opinions might insult Duterte’s supporters, the unfortunate consequence of supporting Duterte is the murder of people. Their opinions and support kills people. One does not need to be a Filipino citizen to realize this. You don’t need to be in the Philippines to see the hypocrisy in regards to Duterte versus religion, the law, and prejudice. The thing is, I actually have high hopes for the country. There are even some things that I agree with Duterte about (his stance on contraception and birth control for one. And I actually think federalism would benefit the country. ). But this zeal for a strong man worries me. Civilization and law evolved as such. First there was the literal strong man in very primitive groups. This was the man who could physically implement his personal view of law and order in his small community. Then came more democratic tribes; this was when communities established rules and mores, and power was not centralized into one figure. Perhaps there was a council of elders and influential members of the community. Later on, law and order became more complex, and we now have the many checks and balances of current systems in different countries. This devolution to needing a strongman leader is a sign of a more basic urge, a return to a primitive way of looking at things, a need for simplistic solutions to more sophisticated, nuanced problems. This is not the Philippines moving forward.

Of course, with Twitter and the Internet, I find myself arguing against unmovable converts. The same goes with Trump supporters and proponents of Brexit. Ironic that in a platform which allows for the free access to different opinions, we all tend to gravitate to information and “facts” which reflect our own opinions. Perhaps, at the risk of sounding arrogant, this is Duterte’s supporters and the Dunning-Kruger effect.

And speaking of the Dunning-Kruger effect, but I believe true Canadians are immune to the Dunning-Kruger effect. It’s not that Canadians are smarter than the average person, but compared to our southern neighbors, we’re not as adamant with our opinions. We tend to be more pliable. Just as Catholics have an enduring place in their hearts for guilt, Canadians have an enduring place in their hearts for self-doubt. It is the part of us that says, “I believe this, but maybe I’m wrong.” So with that in mind, maybe I’m wrong about the Philippines. But for now, it looks like a total disaster.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This Election is Draining Me.

kitten

We are twenty-six days before the US elections and it couldn’t come soon enough. It’s been dominating the news and my Twitter feed so much that it’s virtually inescapable. Even on CBC.ca, it’s right there on the front page. As a Canadian living in South Korea, this shouldn’t affect me so, but it’s been one of the biggest concerns that I engage in online. It has been everything, and I can’t wait for it to be over.

It is disappointing that otherwise intelligent people are brought to a position to defend what are otherwise indefensible positions and thus bringing legitimacy to ideas which would normally have been dismissed. And what’s scary is the rate to what new issues and scandals are being brought up and how people have seemingly just accepted them as the new normal. Right now, the hot button issue is the GOP candidate’s behavior towards women, specifically sexual allegations leveled against him. But it wasn’t that long time ago when he was involved in fat-shaming people, making light of military veterans, not paying his taxes, spouting hatred towards Muslims, etc. I don’t even hear him or other people talk about his initial plans to erect a wall along the Mexican border anymore. It’s like all of these things have been accepted, their offensive barbs have been dulled, because a newer and shinier scandal is blinding everyone at the moment. The perpetual shock, disdain, and disappointment at scandals, followed by the bewilderment and frustration listening to what I would like to believe are more intelligent people than me defend his positions has become really tiring.

I’m a political junkie. I love talking about the law and politics. And it is disappointing that the level of discourse has gotten so low and ignorance has been so normalized, that some people are even attacking the very basic concept of a defendant having access to a lawyer that would advocate for him. And instead of being ridiculed and suffering consequences for making facetious arguments, “experts” are rewarded by being given more media coverage. Alex Jones and Roger Stone have become part of the political discourse. Alex Jones is claiming that President Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton are literally demons. Why even concern yourself with issues like education, police culture, and geopolitical events, when fanciful paranoia can get you just as much political media legs? It’s a damned shame.

What I fear is that even after the elections, even if Hillary wins, the poison that was infused in the media and political culture will linger far beyond 2016. Politics has become dirtier, party lines will be even more divided, and the discourse regarding race, religion, sex, etc. will be even more hateful. This is the election that made political discourse dumb, and has turned “straight talk” into blatant bigotry. The Tea Party movement began in 2009, and though it has waned since then, the American people are still feeling the damage it has done, especially in the way the Senate and the House of Representatives conduct its business. I fear that even if the Republicans suffer due to a down ballot effect, this movement fueled by Trump’s rhetoric and his supporters’ machinations will have a far more longer and insidious effect in our collective culture.

The elections can’t come soon enough.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Horrible Week

Dead_Rabbit

To the two guys who kept arguing with me on my Intro to Criminal Law class before, tell me how racial profiling doesn’t exist now?

The recent events in the US have been the most malignant in terms of race relations recently, a mixture of bad police culture, guns, and a history of racial injustice. I’ve been tweeting about it for a couple of days now, and I’m sure many people have said more thoughtful things about it than me. But what gets to me most about these events is how the movement Black Lives Matter get tarred and feathered. “They’re a terrorist organization financed by George Soros!” “What about the cops?! Blue Lives Matter!” “What about everyone else? All Lives Matter!”

First off, enough with the conspiracy theories. Even if the movement was started by the Illuminati, it is working against a system that is corrupt. A system that is flush with guns, have bad training, and is protected by an abusive union. Even if Black Lives Matter had connections with the Black Panthers, it is a reaction to a system that has continually failed a group of people. Stop being obtuse. People are getting shot and killed, and people are angry. Not everything has to be a convoluted conspiracy of global destabilization. Remember Occam’s razor.

Cops’ lives matter, of course. They all have families and many police officers are minorities. The problem here is the police have a tendency to oppress minorities. They are the ones arresting, oppressing, and shooting black people. To say, blue lives matter, is a false equivalency. No one is systematically oppressing police officers. No one. They are the power. They are the ones with the authority to arrest, detain, and shoot if necessary.

To say “blue lives matter,” is almost the same as complaining about the existence of Black history month, or the BET Awards, or gay pride parades. Minorities have these things because they rarely get a say in things. They have been marginalized and now they are speaking out. Cops have never been marginalized. The song Cop Killer and that video of “pigs in a blanket” did not cause of a long history of suffering for police officers. It didn’t get them arrested. It kept them off schools and jobs. Police officers actually have it good. Many news outlets say that the shooting in Dallas which killed five officers was the deadliest attack on police officers since 9/11. If that’s the case, then being a police officer actually sounds safer than being black, gay, or a toddler in America.

And of course they’re safe. Judging from the protective gear, equipment, and tactics they’ve been using, they’re bound to be safe. The police forces on TV look more prepared for war than the poor soldiers sent to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. Police officers are bound to be safe if their first reaction to a black woman crying after her boyfriend got shot is to point guns at her as well. Diamond Reynolds was a woman whose loved one just got murdered while her daughter was in the vehicle. She’s not a Magneto. It reminds me of that Natalie Merchant song Gun Shy. “There is a world outside of this room, and if you meet it promise me, you won’t meet it with your gun.” Unfortunately, I keep seeing examples of the opposite.

And as for “all lives matter.” I agree. All lives matter. It’s just that black people in America want to be part of that “all.” They have a long history of not mattering.

 

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Dick Fisted

Korean_brand

I met a Canadian teacher a couple of weeks ago. He’s only been on the country for three months. It was showing because I had to teach him a couple of things regarding Korean table manners, which really made me wonder about his handlers. They really should’ve taught him better or he could’ve been more observant.

My friends and I were talking with him when the subject of the HIV test came up. In South Korea, in order to be issued a visa to teach English, a foreigner must have a criminal background check as well as an AIDS test. Now, I don’t mind the criminal background check. In fact, I believe it should be par for the course for any instructor in any country to have a criminal background check. The HIV test however is a tad insidious.

The requirement was put into law a few years ago at a time when Korea had a rash of high profile criminal cases involving Korean teachers taking advantage of their students and either getting light sentences or being reshuffled back into the system. It was also a time when suspicion against foreign men specifically was being encouraged by a hate group who pushed stories to online outlets and TV networks which were more than happy to propagate them. The media would show stories villainizing male English teachers. Curiously, they tend to ignore female English teachers.

Lawmakers responded by making the HIV test a requirement, ignoring the fact that there were no credible stories about foreign English instructors spreading HIV, and that the law does not address the actual problem of leniency towards actual Korean criminals. Failing the HIV test would prevent foreigners from working in the country. It’s a xenophobic law which suggests that foreigners harbor HIV and doesn’t consider the possibility of foreigners catching HIV from a Korean partner. UN Secretary Ban Ki Moon, who happens to be Korean himself, urged the government to end the tests, calling it a violation of human rights. But the government ignored him, and the tests remain as a requirement for foreign English teachers to this day.

What’s funny is that it being a requirement for English teachers, that in itself reflects on its origins: the suspicion against male English teachers. It is not required for any other work visas, even for entertainment visas, which in many countries have been the avenue to which prostitutes enter. Korean men have also been frequenting South East Asian countries and have relations with prostitutes themselves. There are establishments in these countries that are geared solely towards Korean clientele, and yet no one is checking Korean men for HIV after coming back from their business trips.

Given this background for the law and the test, it was a mixture of amusement and sadness when the English teacher I met said that he too had to take the test, but instead of being annoyed or outraged at the requirement as well as the presumption that foreigners bring HIV to the country, he was rather nonchalant about the whole thing. He said that his handlers explained to him that it was a requirement for health insurance purposes.

Now, I don’t know how much time he spent considering this explanation. But there are so many holes in that excuse that it doesn’t take much to disprove. Are they testing for HIV so they could pay for the instructor’s expenses? If they fail and they are not allowed into the country (only about 20+ countries do this), doesn’t that show discrimination? And if they are testing for insurance purposes, how about testing other medical conditions, something without a stigma, perhaps diabetes or asthma?

Attitudes towards foreign men have slightly improved in recent months. Travel shows dominate network television, and foreign men speaking in Korean now appear in Korean talk television. This new trend has people forgetting that just a couple years ago, the fear of the foreigner scourge has been put into law, and that it continues to be a requirement to this day. And while things are currently better, it will only take one or two high-profile stories before the media sparks another moral panic. The Korean National Police Agency just recently announced a cracking down on crimes committed by foreigners by “forming voluntary crime-prevention groups” in response to an increase in foreigner-committed crimes by 5000 a year. In my opinion, this is small when considering the increase of the foreign population in the country. But I read that action as empowering local hate groups and vigilantism, and I suspect that like before, it is a misguided response to an altogether different problem.

Now, someone please explain to that naïve teacher why the HIV test is a bad thing.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Hulkamania Runs Wild On You

Tim_Hortons

Here’s my Tim Horton’s duck after drawing over it. I’m back to my traditional drawing after weeks of doing faux anime.

I’m very happy with the Terry “Hulk Hogan” Bollea vs. Gawker Media verdict. Hulk Hogan just won a $115 civil lawsuit against Gawker media who published a sex tape of him having relations with his best friend’s ex-wife. Gawker media argued that it was a First Amendment issue and since Hulk Hogan candidly talked about his personal life (including his sex life) in public, then the sex tape should be considered news-worthy material. Terry Bollea argued that it’s a violation of his privacy rights and that all the personal and sex life talk is him as his Hulk Hogan persona. It doesn’t give anyone free-reign on all of his life, including his most intimate moments.

The case was quite interesting because it showed a company that was willing to be on both sides of an issue to get more clicks, to make a profit. When Jennifer Lawrence Lawrence and other female celebrities’ phones were hacked and their naked pictures were posted online, Jezebel, a feminist Web site under Gawker Media ran articles non-stop railing against the evils of the companies hosting such images. They equated the posting of the images to sexual violence. A couple of years later, they post a video of Hulk Hogan, even fighting to keep the video online. Double standard much?

The six-person jury awarded Hulk Hogan $15 million more than the original $100 claim. The jury is still going to reconvene tomorrow to discuss punitive damages which could bury Gawker Media. Left as is, the decision could end the Gawker Media empire. Of course, the company is already planning to appeal the decision, but before doing so, they must pose a $50 million bond which I’m not sure the company could collect. And while some people are confident that the company could win on appeal based on the absolute victory on Judge Campbell’s court, I’m cautiously optimistic since the appeals court has reversed many of the Judge’s rulings in the case. There’s a possibility that Hulk Hogan’s victory might not be as big after the appeal, but it will definitely be devastating for Gawker, especially for its owner as well as its former editor who glibly suggested in court that he would be willing to show a five year-old’s sex tape on their Web site. I’m sure this failed attempt at humor didn’t impress the jury.

I don’t mind tabloid journalism; I read tabloid/celebrity stories now and then. But I was just never a fan of Gawker Media’s sensationalist, click-driven ethos. In the pursuit of more media attention, they sensationalize and even fabricate news which in a more journalistically-responsible world would not even be considered news. They didn’t care what story they were pushing or what side they were on, as long as it garnered clicks. And what concerns me more is that not only was Gawker Media being rewarded for not having any journalistic value, their stories are being taken up by other news aggregators who are increasingly adopting the Gawker Media formula. You can’t have a healthy democracy without well-informed citizens (Honderich). And you can’t have well-informed citizens if you have media that is solely motivated by clicks.

 

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

You’re losing me, online news.

Tommy_Douglas

Here’s to Tommy Douglas, a great Canadian hero. Because of him, Canadians’ taxes actually go to healthcare instead of just meaningless wars.

I no longer get my news anywhere but online, but seriously, these news sites that aggregate news stories need to get away from the click-bait and the ideology-driven model, otherwise they won’t last as long. I have a very rough relationship with The Huffington Post. The Daily Beast and Salon have already lost me. Now and then, Breitbart.com would have a story worth reading, but most of the site is ideologically driven garbage. There were fears in the west that Aljazeera would mostly be pro-Islam, pro-Palestine propaganda, but ironically, they’ve been pretty unbiased with the materials they publish online, definitely better than CNN.com.

Let’s look at Salon.com. Now I consider myself a feminist, but they’re “new feminist” agenda is getting ridiculous. An inordinate amount of stories are bent to become feminist related articles even on issues that aren’t or shouldn’t be seen from a feminist standpoint. Just recently, the singer Kesha accused her long-time producer of sexual harassment. She signed an exclusive contract with him and Sony and is thus obligated to work with him and produce six more albums. Her producer claims the allegations are just a ploy for her to get out of her contract. Now, I would give her the benefit of the doubt if she didn’t deny any rape allegations herself back in 2011. A simple Google search would provide that information, but instead, Salon.com ran article after article of Sony “forcing” the singer to work with her producer.

Kesha filed for an injunction against her producer and Sony, but the judge in the case, not seeing any evidence of sexual abuse, rejected her claim. Unfortunately, the judge inartfully worded the judgment, saying that it was “my instinct to do the commercially reasonable thing.” Instead of saying that, she should’ve said that contracts cannot be annulled based solely on allegations. There was no evidence of sexual misconduct, and the burden of proof for sexual harassment is already lower than most crimes. If the judge allowed the injunction, it would have set the precedent for women to just make allegations in order to get out of what were normally binding agreements.

This was not a feminist issue. It wasn’t people ignoring the pleas of victims of sexual crimes. It was the law acting as it should, basing decisions on evidence and not on ideology. For the media like Salon.com to treat this as an example of miscarriage of justice not only betrays their role as journalists, but it also does a disservice to real feminism. Not to mention, it also tars the name and damages the livelihood of those who are accused of sexual allegations without any solid evidence. This was not the first time Salon.com and other online news outlets did this either. The same thing happened with Mattress Girl.

We really should listen and be more sympathetic to victims of abuse, but our sympathies should not cloud evidence or the lack thereof. Look at the Steven Avery case. He’s not the most sympathetic character if you look at his police record and his past behavior prior to getting incarcerated for rape the first time. But it’s exactly the sympathy for the rape victim and the hatred for Steven Avery that cost him eighteen years of his life the first time around. Forget the evidence. Let’s incarcerate the town villain! Then there’s OJ Simpson, some would argue that the social and political climate at the time convinced some members of the population to be on his side, regardless of the evidence of his guilt. (Of course, truly believing that the accused committed a crime versus believing that the case against the accused was proven beyond any reasonable doubt are two different things.)

But then again, this was Salon.com, the same Web site that argued that Magneto, a Jewish comic book super villain, should be black in order to reflect current racial tensions. Because you know, slow news day, so everyone decides to play lawyer and indict a man for sexual crimes on the press.

 

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Dead Judge

Seoul_graffiti

So Judge Antonin Scalia passed away and the US presidential election got even more interesting. The current president still has eleven months to nominate a judge, and really, there’s no reason he shouldn’t. Whoever he nominates of course would be met with opposition from the people on the other side of the political spectrum, but to not nominate anyone would seem like an abdication of duty. It would be interesting to see the opposition and how the president could push the nomination through. Even Megatron, a robot that literally transforms into a gun, would face strong opposition from the right.

Judge Antonin Scalia, in my opinion, was one of the worst judges ever. Sure, there were a few times when he sounded reasonable and his writing style can be amusing, but all too often he was pro-torture, a champion of states’ rights (which in practice meant taking away people’s rights), and a pro-life nut. In many cases involving race, he refuses to recognize the disadvantage of being a colored minority in America. He was backwards when it comes to marriage equality, and has been described by Congressman Barney Frank as a homophobe. He was pro death penalty, even to those under 15 at the time of the crime. He was one of the judges which gave George Bush the presidency, which ironically led the US to Iraq, which led to his son being in Iraq. One of the worst decisions he made was the defense of the Citizens United decision and redefined personhood, free speech, and corruption.

Still, in his death, even some liberals lionized him and praised his brilliance. He was brilliant as a judge, but not as a human being regarding those judgments. It’s like praising Hitler for being a great leader in the most mechanical of senses, but a terrible human being. In the future, I’m hopeful that we’ll see him as being mostly on the wrong side of history.

As ghoulish as it is to look at the positive side of his passing, this is a good opportunity for Americans to finally tip the scales of the political leanings of their supreme court. In some ways, I’m a tad jealous of this. The Canadian Supreme Court has seven out of nine court judges appointed by conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The Chief Justice is a libertarian, but she’s currently 72 years old and the mandatory retirement age for judges is 75. The Harper-appointed judges are anywhere from 50 to 68 years-old. Granted, the Supreme Court of Canada hasn’t been as conservative as one would expect. In fact, it often went up against the Harper government that nominated most of its members. The court was against mandatory minimum sentences and protected safe injections sites among some of its more progressive decisions. There were often talks about the Harper government losing to the Supreme Court, especially when it comes to drug cases. But it’s not nearly as progressive as one would expect out of Canadians. (Or perhaps I’m being foolish here and looking at left and right politics in a branch of government designed to ignore such leanings. But that’s just being naïve, isn’t it?)

This is one of those rare cases where I look at the South Korean justice system and see what the Canadian and the US system could benefit from it. In South Korea, judges in the supreme court are not given a lifetime appointment. They’re only given four years. A four year appointment, in my opinion, might make them open to political sway, especially when considering their position after their appointment, much like politicians turning into political lobbyists. However, a lifetime appointment doesn’t insulate a judge from political forces either. Just look at Clarence Thomas. Perhaps a middle position would be wise. Instead of a lifetime or a near-lifetime appointment, maybe a ten-year appointment would be better. It would ensure the regular flow of new blood into the judicial system and not have political legacies continue long after they’re in fashion. Looking at Scalia, he was Reagan’s ghost, a two-term president who extended his influence far longer than his eight years. This seems to be counter to what a democracy should be.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,