Sylvia's blog

This article from Kimberle Crenshaw and Eve Ensler on The Huffington Post is electric.

The collaboration of these two women made me smile this morning. It's a small glimpse of nexus. Kimberle Crenshaw is a prominent African-American legal analyst on the subject of race (in other words, she does a lot of work with Critical Race Theory), and she also has written extensively on race, gender, and anti-essentialism. Eve Ensler is a white Jewish playwright and artist (a controversial one), well-known for her work The Vagina Monologues and the theater event V-Day:

V-Day raises funds and awareness through annual benefit productions of "The Vagina Monologues." In 2007, more than 3,000 V-Day events took place in 1,150 locations in the U.S. and around the world. To date, the V-Day movement has raised over $40 million and educated millions about the issue of violence against women and the efforts to end it, crafted international educational, media and PSA campaigns, launched the Karama program in the Middle East, reopened shelters, and funded over 5,000 community-based anti-violence programs and safe houses in Kenya, South Dakota, Egypt and Iraq. The 'V' in V-Day stands for Vagina, Victory and Valentine.

In this article's current political and social context, it is perhaps the most embracing of intersection, the most respectful of the politics of young women, and the most reflective and hopeful treatise to the evolution and growth of the feminist movement in relation to the Clinton/Obama fracas I've seen in the past month.

On Friday, May 11th, the indie circuit will feature the debut of a film titled The Hip Hop Project. One showing is going to be down the street from my law school at The Charles, our independent theater hub in Baltimore. I hear someone making the rounds on our local hip-hop station and our local Fox affiliate, hyping this project, and it sounds very positive and very bold. Being in my usual early morning stupor, I don't know who is behind this voice, but the message was enough to get me moving. Here's a link to the trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8emq1rtBnec

Even in the release of the film to the public, the movie has challenged assumptions about its content -- direct and indirect. The MPAA tried to slap an "R" rating on the film because it uses the word "fuck" 17 times throughout the movie, which barely spans an hour and a half. According to XXL Mag, the backers of the movie project appealed, and the board voted to change its rating to "PG-13," meaning hopefully it will reach more audiences and have wider influence. The net proceeds of the movie will be used for the benefit of youth organizations.

Through Hip Hop Press, I found more information about the movie and project initiative:

To pick up on a theme I alluded to last time, let's start with an excerpt from Part 2.

But perhaps the trickiest aspect to prove out of all of the aspects listed up there is “reasonable fear.” American legal requirements are fraught with these ideas and concepts of what a “reasonable” person would do and feel. The reasonable person standard has evolved over time from being a reasonable white male standard to being a more inclusive reasonable American citizen standard. Historically, the reasonable man standard excluded all women and males of color for a very long time. It excluded people with mental disabilities and children. As the needs and the values of each of these groups integrated into the American social fabric, the concept of what is reasonable to an American citizen has changed slightly. Plus, it’s a bit fearful for any marginalized group to realize that mainstream society — the society that feels almost at home when it’s excluding or ridiculing someone on the margins of opportunity — considers itself a beacon of reasonable progress.

Before I go any further, allow me to share the source of the series title because its implications bothered me then. They still bother me now.

Remember this clip?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3RjiVcIlhY

In the first few seconds, Richards tells African-American hecklers that 50 years ago, he and others would have them upside down with a f**king fork up their asses. And the audience laughs, howls, and cheers -- the same audience that files out of the club moments later when he starts calling the hecklers niggers.

I did some Googling and compiled a few resources where you can donate money and send condolences to the Virginia Tech community. If you know of any other funds or venues, please alert me with a comment and I can update this entry. Thank you.

Virginia Tech has established a Hokie Spirit Memorial Fund.

You can also offer condolences, thoughts, and prayers to the victims here.

View the homepage of Virginia Tech for more information about campus events and organizing.

I pass this along hesitantly because I don't know whether or not it's been authorized or whatever precautions you're supposed to take. I spotted it on the Information on Virginia Tech Shooting Facebook page.

With recent events happening today at Virginia Tech I found my heart saddened thinking about all the families who hearts were forever wounded. As I sat in class and learned of the tragic event I looked around the room and imagined what it would have felt like if it would have been my class. Yet, even then I could not imagine how devastated this campus must be. As I spoke with friends about this ordeal we decided we wanted to anything we could to let the victims’ families know that the schools across the country sympathize with their losses. In efforts to do whatever we could we have tried calling anyone we know at colleges and universities across the nation.

In recommending legal remedies, you may note that I said a blogger has the building blocks of a case if they receive a bothersome threat. I felt reluctant to say that bloggers have absolute awesome odds of winning every legal case ever because each legal provision has its elements. If those elements are not satisfied, then the chances of prevailing in court (or even getting to court) are slim.

Let's take the provisions of cyberstalking as an example. To successfully bring a cyberstalking suit, the following must be proven:

(1) the defendant intentionally used the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce;

(2) the defendant engaged in a course of conduct with the intent to place the victim in reasonable fear of death of, or serious bodily injury to, herself, her spouse or intimate partner, or a member of her immediate family; and

(3) the defendant’s course of conduct actually placed the victim in reasonable fear of death of, or serious bodily injury to, herself.

Now, if I'm learning my lawyering skills properly, it's our job to make sure we can prove every single facet of those elements true for the satisfaction of the court. We have to break down each element into its component parts and work on resolving the issues. So, for the first element, there are three things that we must find to satisfy it -- that the defendant in the case did the alleged behavior, that the behavior committed was intentionally done, and that the method used for doing it was "mail or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce." If it can be established that someone else used the defendant's computer to send the threatening message, there'd be a problem. If it could be established somehow that the defendant did not intend to use the device on which they sent the offending message, there'd be a problem. (And trust me, there are legal requirements for intent that sometimes defy common sense, and a good defense lawyer bills you highly to find them and to use them.) If the offending message was somehow not sent on the methods listed, there'd be a problem. So lawyers comb through each element, looking through little loopholes like those to worm through victories for clients on either side of the "v." in a case. It is not easy, and television makes it look easy, though the courtroom speeches and magical eloquence of actors inspire quite a few litigators, I'm sure.

So I guess you all have heard about the Kathy Sierra situation and the public outcry for ending online abuse because of her case, right? If not, take a look at Sierra's account and the horribly misogynistic threats left by anonymous and psuedonymous commenters and the resulting effects on her ability to blog and on her safety. Read BlogHer's response concerning hate speech and misogyny on the internet. Finally, check out this BBC article about the whole Sierra controversy and some brief remarks at Zuky concerning online abuse. (Hat tips to Carmen (via e-mail) and Kai for the information.)

I'm trying to fight my inclination to spiral all over the place with this entry; there are so many associations running through my mind. My mind enjoys weaving fragile patterns of analysis together, either with rope, with wire, or with webbing. But in doing such connections, sometimes I can lose a point or make too many of them at once. Bear with my mind and its impulsive blossoms of insight, please. This post has ruminated in my head for more than a day now. Though I'm writing in the evening currently, I don't expect to post until I've had a full night's sleep (or more) and time to review my writing.

Consider this post the result of my taking a good idea and running with it.

A letter writing campaign is more than writing the letter. Believe me, I know. While in college, I helped coordinate letter writing campaigns for Amnesty International. With AI, things are slightly easier because they refine a form letter for you. We printed the letters, learned about the causes (sometimes coupling them with presentations to the public), set up an outpost in a high traffic area, and we convinced people to read and to sign the letters. And that was merely one step for the letter signing activist and one step out of many for us.

So starting a letter writing campaign from scratch requires a little more work, unless there are websites who already have form letters. If you have a form letter, some of the work has been done for you. For the Imus situation, I understand that the National Organization for Women has taken up the massive hint they should be involved in this matter where Imus publicly insulted black women. They have form letters to the station manager Chuck Bortnick (most direct superior of Imus), CBS Communications Director Karen Mateo (CBS Radio owns the station generally), and MSNBC Television (they hype the show like it's its favorite play cousin). Now, if you want to get someone fired, those three people are good people to try to convince, right? Yes...but in our money-driven corporate media, do you think the letters telling them to cease and desist will be enough? No doubt they play a role, but will they be enough?