Ruthann Robson (CUNY) has a generous and very helpful review of my article “Identity Entrepreneurs,” forthcoming in the California Law Review, out in JOTWELL today. I appreciate the feedback and invite comments from others.
My latest article, “Identity Entrepreneurs,” is forthcoming in the California Law Review. I’m thrilled to be working with a journal that has published so many of the seminal works relating to identity and discrimination. The abstract to the piece is available after the jump: Continue reading
I meant to post this to the blog earlier and it slipped my mind — this week’s episode of The RightsCast features Professor Jessica Clarke of the University of Minnesota Law School and can be viewed below. It’s a fascinating comparison of sexual harassment cases in which the harasser and target are the same sex, and cases in which they are opposite sexes. Enjoy!
In this week’s episode of The RightsCast, I talk with Professor Jessica Clarke (University of Minnesota) about her research comparing sexual harassment cases involving same-sex harassment with those involving opposite-sex harassment.
I have a new article today on Slate about the way we tend to overlook or downplay gendered violence. I was prompted to write the piece after a tweet I wrote of the cuff ended up getting retweeted a lot, and seemed to resonate with people. I observed that Ismaaiyl Brinsley (and other men who shoot their girlfriends) don’t make the news unless they do something else (here, the tragic shootings of New York police officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos). My point was simply that it’s an awful thing that domestic violence is so common that ti’s not even newsworthy. After seeing the kind of response the tweet prompted, I thought I’d elaborate.
I really enjoyed my guest stint on the Reappropriate video podcast, hosted by Jenn of Reappropriate.com. You can view the podcast on YouTube to hear my thoughts on the Supreme Court, judges and technology, free speech, online threats, subjective intent, the reasonable person, rap music, and much more.
The following post originally appeared on the blog “Hamilton and Griffin on Rights.” The owners of the blog have kindly allowed me to cross-post it here.
The year 2014 has raised many issues relating to offensive, harassing, and threatening Internet speech. In January, columnist Amanda Hess wrote a piece called “Why Women Aren’t Welcome on the Internet,” sparking a wide-ranging and still-ongoing conversation about online speech. The debate over Internet speech has extended to other areas. New York’s highest court considered and ultimately rejected a state cyberbullying statute as overbroad, in violation of the First Amendment. More than twenty states passed or are considering statutes criminalizing revenge porn. Meanwhile, intimate photos of celebrities were stolen, downloaded, and shared over and over. GamerGate led to intense online harassment of women involved in the video game industry, with serious consequences in the offline world—after receiving graphic anonymous threats, pop culture commentator Anita Sarkeesian cancelled a talk, while video game developer Brianna Wu had to leave her home for several days.
It’s fitting, then, that the Supreme Court should hear argument today in Elonis v United States, a case involving involving arguably threatening posts on Facebook. The Supreme Court has held that “true threats” may be criminalized consistent with the First Amendment, although it has not defined the term “true threats” with any precision. The issue Elonis presents is whether a person can be convicted of making true threats if a reasonable person would have perceived the statements as threatening, or whether, as Elonis argues, the government must also prove that the speaker subjectively intended to make a threat. Continue reading
Jessica Valenti asks important questions about men’s violence against women: “[I]t’s hard to look at the continued violence and violent speech directed at women by men and not wonder: what is it about women that makes some men so angry?”
I’ve coauthored a short essay with my University of Denver Sturm College of Law colleague Ian Farrell — “Gender Discrimination and Same-Sex Marriage” — and am now pleased to share that the piece will be forthcoming in the Columbia Law Review Sidebar. (For non-legal/non-academic folks, the Sidebar is the online companion to the traditional print format of the Columbia Law Review.) I’ll have more details about the timing of publication soon.
Corey Rayburn Yung (Kansas) has an important new article in the Iowa Law Review: “How to Lie with Rape Statistics: America’s Hidden Rape Crisis.” As a starting point, his research uses media investigations in several cities revealing that police systematically eliminated rape complaints from their official reported statistics. Police officers and departments in those cities used “three difficult-to-detect methods” to avoid counting and reporting rapes: “designating a complaint as ‘unfounded’ with little or no investigation; classifying an incident as a lesser offense; and failing to create a written report that a victim made a rape complaint.”
The study presented in the article identifies undercounting jurisdictions by determining whether their pattern of reporting crime is highly unusual. Specifically, the study uses the rate of murders as a baseline. This is a sound choice because murder is not susceptible to undercounting: it’s difficult to undercount a crime that results in a body. And, nationwide, the rate of murder and the rate of rape is highly correlated. Continue reading