#filed under: class war 2023

[unwilting]

Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal said the new document had been two years in the making, but it is really the culmination of internal debates that go back more than a decade.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

The "religious liberty" angle for overturning the overturning of Dobbs

Frank Wilhoit’s definition of “conservativism” remains a classic:

There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progressives/#comment-729288

Conservativism is, in other words, the opposite of the rule of law, which is the idea that the law applies equally to all. Many of America’s most predictably weird moments live in the tension between the rule of law and the conservative’s demand to be protected — but not bound — by the law.

Think of the Republican women of Florida whose full-throated support for the perfomatively cruel and bigoted policies of Ron Desantis turned to howls of outrage when the governor signed a law “overhauling alimony” (for “overhauling,” read “eliminating”):

https://www.orlandoweekly.com/news/this-is-a-death-sentence-for-me-florida-republican-women-say-they-will-switch-parties-after-desantis-approves-alimony-law-34563230

This is real leopards-eating-people’s-faces-party stuff, and it’s the only source of mirth in an otherwise grim situation.

But out of the culture-war bullshit backfires, none is so sweet and delicious as the religious liberty self-own. You see, under the rule of law, if some special consideration is owed to a group due to religious liberty, that means all religions. Of course, Wilhoit-drunk conservatives imagine that “religious liberty” is a synonym for Christian liberty, and that other groups will never demand the same carve outs.

Remember when Louisiana decided spend tax dollars to fund “religious” schools under a charter school program, only to discover — to their Islamaphobic horror — that this would allow Muslim schools to get public subsidies, too?

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/louisiana_n_1593995

(They could have tried the Quebec gambit, where hijabs and yarmulkes are classed as “religious” and therefore banned for public servants and publicly owned premises, while crosses are treated as “cultural” and therefore exempted — that’s some primo Wilhoitism right there)

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-francois-legault-crucifix-religious-symbols-1.4858757

The Satanic Temple has perfected the art of hoisting religious liberty on its own petard. Are you a state lawmaker hoping to put a giant Ten Commandments on the statehouse lawn? Go ahead, have some religious liberty — just don’t be surprised when the Satanic Temple shows up to put a giant statue of Baphomet next to it:

https://www.npr.org/2018/08/17/639726472/satanic-temple-protests-ten-commandments-monument-with-goat-headed-statue

Wanna put a Christmas tree in the state capitol building? Sure, but there’s gonna be a Satanic winter festival display right next to it:

https://katv.com/news/offbeat/satanic-temple-display-installed-at-illinois-capitol-next-to-nativity-scene-menorah-decorations-snake-serpent-satanic-temple-springfield-christmas-tree

And now we come to Dobbs, and the cowardly, illegitimate Supreme Court’s cowardly, illegitimate overturning of Roe v Wade, a move that was immediately followed by “red” states implementing total, or near-total bans on abortion:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/06/15/paid-medical-disinformation/#crisis-pregnancy-centers

These same states are hotbeds of “religious liberty” nonsense. In about a dozen of these states, Jews, Christians, and Satanists are filing “religious liberty” challenges to the abortion ban. In Indiana, the Hoosier Jews For Choice have joined with other religious groups in a class action, to argue that the “religious freedom” law that Mike Pence signed as governor protects their right to an abortion:

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/21/legal-strategy-that-could-topple-abortion-bans-00102468

Their case builds on precedents from the covid lockdowns, like decisions that said that if secular exceptions to lockdown rules or vaccine mandates existed, then states had to also allow religious exemptions. That opens the door for religious exemptions to abortion bans — if there’s a secular rule that permits abortion in the instance of incest or rape, then faith-based exceptions must be permitted, too.

Some of the challenges to abortion rules seek to carve out religious exemptions, but others seek to overturn the abortion rules altogether, because the lawmakers who passed them explicitly justified them in the name of fusing Christian “values” with secular law, a First Amendment no-no.

As Rabbi James Bennett told Politico’s Alice Ollstein: “They’re entitled to their interpretation of when life begins, but they’re not entitled to have the exclusive one.”

In Florida, a group of Jewish, Buddhist, Episcopalian, Universalists and United Church clerics are challenging the “aiding and abetting” law because it restricts the things they can say from the pulpit — a classic religious liberty gambit.

Kentucky’s challenge comes from three Jewish women whose faith holds that life begins “with the first breath.” Lead plaintiff Lisa Sobel described how Kentucky’s law bars her from seeking IVF treatment, because she could face criminal charges for “discarding non-viable embryos” created during the process.

Then there’s the Satanic Temple, in court in Texas, Idaho and Indiana. The Satanists say that abortion is a religious ritual, and argue that the state can’t limit their access to it.

These challenges all rest on state religious liberty laws. What will happen when some or all of these reach the Supreme Court? It’s a risky gambit. This is the court that upheld Trump’s Muslim ban and the right of a Christian baker to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. It’s a court that loves Wilhoit’s “in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”

It’s a court that’s so Wilhoit-drunk, it’s willing to grant religious liberty to bigots who worry about imaginary same-sex couples:

https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-gay-marriage-website-real-straight-man-supreme-court

But in the meantime, the bigots and religious maniacs who want to preserve “religious liberty” while banning abortion are walking a fine line. The Becket Fund, which funded the Hobby Lobby case (establishing that religious maniacs can deny health care to their employees if their imaginary friends object), has filed a brief in one case arguing that the religious convictions of people arguing for a right to abortion aren’t really sincere in their beliefs:

https://becketnewsite.s3.amazonaws.com/20230118184008/Individual-Members-v.-Anonymous-Planitiff-Amicus-Brief.pdf

This is quite a line for Becket to have crossed — religious liberty trufans hate it when courts demand that people seeking religious exemptions prove that their beliefs are sincerely held.

Not only is Becket throwing its opposition to “sincerely held belief” tests under the bus, they’re doing so for nothing. Jewish religious texts clearly state that life begins at the first breath, and that the life of a pregnant person takes precedence over the life of the fetus in their uterus.

The kicker in Ollstein’s great article comes in the last paragraph, delivered by Columbia Law’s Elizabeth Reiner Platt, who runs the Law, Rights, and Religion Project:

The idea of reproductive rights as a religious liberty issue is absolutely not something that came from lawyers. It’s how faith communities themselves have been talking about their approach to reproductive rights for literally decades.

The Clarion Science Fiction Writers’ Workshop (I’m a grad, instructor and board member) is having its fundraiser auction to help defray tuition. I’ve donated a “Tuckerization” — the right to name a character in a future novel:

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/clarion-sf-fantasy-writers-workshop-23-campaign/#/

If you’d like an essay-formatted version of this thread to read or share, here’s a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/11/wilhoitism/#hoosier-jews

[Image ID: Moses parting the Red Sea. On the seabed is revealed a Planned Parenthood clinic.]

Image: Nina Paley (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Moses-Splits-Sea_by_Nina_Paley.jpg

CC0 1.0 https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/deed.en

 — 

Kristina D.C. Hoeppner (modified) https://www.flickr.com/photos/4nitsirk/40406966752/

CC BY-SA 2.0: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/

[naturalrights-retard]

Remember when the US government discharged 100,000 troops who refused to take the vaccine? They did so at a time when recruitment was at an all-time low and effectively prevented many from ever serving the country. Now, discharged troops are suing the Biden Administration for lost wages and benefits.

This has become a class-action lawsuit and anyone who was wrongfully terminated may join by clicking here. “This is the greatest reduction in force since the end of the Cold War and likely the greatest self-inflicted threat to national security and military readiness in our Nation’s history as we face the prospect of war with rival superpowers on multiple fronts around the world,” the case summary states. “Congress saw the damage that this was doing to our military and national security and ordered the military to rescind the mandate in January 2023. Unfortunately, Congress did not explicitly order the military to provide backpay and financial compensation for all the service members and veterans harmed by DoD COVID-19 mandates.”

The lawsuit acknowledges that the vaccine was “unlicensed” and “experimental.” Dale Saran, a retired Marine, and Andy Meyer and Brandon Johnson are joining forces to fight for our service men and women. Saran believes the backpay will cost the government billions. “They were basically [without] the benefit of any due process. No boards were held. They didn’t hold any administrative separation boards; they didn’t hold any hearings. They didn’t do any federal recognition boards; none of the administrative or judicial procedures were used. They just flat-out did it. And then…they got the Coast Guard to follow along, and they got a bunch of Coasties too,” Saran said. He also stated that the defense secretary’s original order only required military members to take licensed vaccinations.

Saran has represented troops who were forced to take the anthrax vaccine in the late 90s and early 2000s. “[H]ere we are, second go around again, 15 years in, and we’re right back at the mass vaccination of unlicensed vaccines like the government didn’t learn last time. So, nothing new under the sun,” he stated.

Yet now the US government is begging troops to return and fight their endless wars. The US Army had the audacity to send letters to former service members who they fired for refusing the poison, begging them to return. “[A]s a result of the rescission of all current COVID-19 vaccination requirements, former Soldiers who were involuntarily separated for refusal to receive the COVID-19 vaccination may request a correction of their military records from either or both the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) or the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR),” the letter, which was sent a week after Veteran’s Day, noted. The Army has been reduced from 485,000 to 452,000 members, marking the smallest active duty Army since 1940. Only 23% of people aged 17 to 24 qualify to serve, and that is after the military reduced standards for recruitment.

Based on how the government treats our troops, I do not believe they will see any meaningful spike in recruitment. No one feels passionately about these foreign wars that do not aid America. The military will soon be composed of illegal migrants wishing to stay in the US.

[eris-snow]

𝐀 𝐋𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐥𝐞 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐭

Tags: Deku's birthday series 2023, izuku x fem!reader, angst

Time is flying by fast, and that villain asshole knows something, but he never opens his damn mouth even though he doesn’t have much to lose.

I’m not really up to talking now. Give me a day, and we can discuss your note. But just…leave me alone for the night.

“L/n will be out today as she got into a fight on her way back to the dorms yesterday. Although I’m sure many of you already know that.” Aizawa flips his file open and stands at the lectern, eyebags on broad display. “She’ll be back tomorrow—”

“Aizawa-sensei, where’s Bakugou?”

Eijiro had beat Izuku to the question the moment he saw the empty seat in front of him. It was unlike Katsuki to skip class.

“He’s taking care of her because she’s out of the dorms today. We don’t want a repeat of yesterday.”

Izuku feels a little insulted by that. It felt as if Aizawa had chosen Katsuki over him because he had more faith that the explosive boom boom man could take better care of you than he could. He knows that wasn’t the case, but a twinge of jealousy still settled in his heart and refused to leave.

He tried to gloss over everything that happened the best he could when his classmates asked yesterday, but it still got Katsuki leaving the dorms even though visitor hours were ending in mere minutes. He wasn’t back until the sky was dark either.

And that’s when he backtracks. Wait*, out of the dorms*? You just recovered from a huge amount of blood loss and a knife to the shoulder blade! How could Aizawa allow you to leave again? “She’ll be back by nightfall with Bakugou.”

Roars of questions and raise hands fill the classroom as Tenya attempts to calm everyone down with his excessive, robotic arm gestures. It doesn’t work.

“Enough!” Aizawa shouts, eyes glowing red.

The class is consumed by pin-drop silence in under 5 seconds.

“If anything, you should worry about yourselves. Summer holidays might be coming up, but with all the lost time due to the war, you’ll have to brave extra remedial classes to get up to speed. Discuss this incident in your free time. Class dismissed.”

Izuku wonders if you’ve read his note. There’s something stirring inside of him again, the strange feeling like something wasn’t quite right, like you were hiding something big from him. His head throbs, causing him to wince. But he’d given his word to wait, didn’t he?

He frowns and slumps in his seat. He’ll just have to check in with you after school.

--

Last Night

“You don’t seriously expect me to go along with this,” Aizawa sighs, eyebrow raised in genuine amusement.

“Sure, you’re being discharged tomorrow morning if the tests run are clear, but that doesn’t mean you can go gallivanting off wherever you want. If anything, you should be at the dorms, resting.”

“Sir, I need to see him again.” You insist. “I do it every year, and the connection between yesterday’s attack and my past with Izuku is only going to cause more problems if we can’t figure out a way to break his Quirk.”

“I’m not compromising U.A.’s students’ safety for this,” Aizawa deadpans, “You’re going through a tough time now, and the guy took you by surprise. You’re still learning, so I’ll give you a free pass on that, too. But going out to Tartarus is like walking straight into a lion’s den.”

“Then I’ll walk into the den with her.”

Both of your eyes flicker to the blond leaning on the side of the infirmary’s door frame, eyes sharp and arms folded. “Tartarus, eh? Sure, let’s do it.”

“Kacchan can help me then!” You jump in. “All Might can drive us there. We’ll only talk to him for an hour, you know how the procedure usually goes.”

Aizawa doesn’t say anything, simply staring at Katsuki like he was something he pulled off his shoe.

“I’m the only one actually caught up with the curriculum, aside from that green mop-headed nerd.” Katsuki shrugs. “A day wouldn’t hurt to miss for something this big.”

The next day, two forms of approval to leave the dorms were set by your makeshift bedside table.

--

Present

“And I was hoping that with the shenanigans of the outside world, you’d finally lose hope and I’d be free from your annual torment,” The villain, Isamu Suzuki, sighs, strapped down to a metal chair. “I see you brought a friend with you today.”

“I’m just here to make sure that she doesn’t have to do this alone. So don’t you dare pull some weird psychological shit, got me?” Katsuki says, tone cold, before flopping down on his armchair. Now that he’s in front of you, you can sort of see the family resemblance. His hair was longer than before, blond hair running past his shoulders. But he had the same ice-blue-like eyes as his brother you met not 24 hours ago.

“You really are a lucky girl,” Isamu sighs, making you stiffen. “Not only do you have that green-haired imp as a friend, but you also have one of the most volatile people on the planet helping you through something as trivial as this.”

“Shut it, asshole,” Katsuki grits out, crimson eyes staring daggers at the villain. “I ain’t the one on the other side of this glass, am I?”

Isamu goes quiet at that.

“We captured your brother yesterday.” You start, and it makes the blue-eyed villain’s eyes snap to you. “He was trying to avenge you.” You leaned back, not letting an inch of fear cloud your voice. “He wanted to kill me.”

“Where is he?” He demands, eyes glaring at you. “What did he do—?”

“Then tell me how to release Izuku from your Quirk,” You offer, standing firm. “You have nothing to lose. I don’t see why you have the persistence to hold out for over 6 years.”

“Don’t play mind games with me, brat.” He sneers, turning his head away. “You’ve been haggling with me for the past half-decade. Do you really think I’ll tell you what you want just like that? Fat chance.”

Staring at the scene playing out in front of him, Katsuki’s hands start to steam. “Do you want to know about your shitty brother or not?”

Isamu’s expression changes, dulling a little. Then, his lips curl into a hair-raising smile. “You know, I saw him back when All For One freed all of Tartarus.” His eyes are small, beady and knowing. “Deku, right? Your precious Zuku captured me in 5 minutes flat while he was on his rampage.”

My eyebrows twitch, and I remain silent.

“He didn’t even recognise me, even though it’s only been 5 years.” He continues, adding insult to injury. “I’m not surprised, though. He always did have a heart of a hero…” He pauses for a pregnant moment, eyes glowing bright blue.

“Just like when he protected you all those years ago.”

“Quit talking about it like that,” You mutter, voice low. “We were just kids.”

“Kids that threw me in jail,” he sighs, “You’ve always been a lucky girl, having him save you like that.”

And for some reason, that’s the line that makes you snap.

“Why does everyone keep saying that?” You explode, hands fisting the armchair’s thick leather. “Did you think I wanted to get involved? I was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and it costed me Zuku’s memories. Why did you erase his memories that day? Why did you choose me?”

Your eyes well up with unshed tears, and you feel Katsuki’s hand on your shoulder. A silent form of support you didn’t have the time to appreciate.

“If the asshole’s getting to you, we should go. Don’t force yourself to be in the same room as this asshole for too long,” he whispers, voice warm and coaxing.

That day replays in your mind like rusty DVD tape, static lining your memories as you recall your last day with him before even reaching middle school.

It’s painful.

--

15th July, 6 years ago. (10 years old)

“Starlight, come on! Slow down—”

“Not a chance!” You replied, pulling him along with an award-winning smile on your face. “It’s your birthday! I won’t let Kacchan ruin it just because he’s not here. We’ll have cake and I even got you a present—ooph!”

A man in his early 20s crashes into you, and you immediately recoil back as Izuku frantically catches you, eyes shining with concern. Big wads of cash fly in the air as money scatters.

“Are you alright?!” Izuku asks, voice hitching.

The man gets up on his feet and whips to the both of you. Eyes brimming with anger, he starts to pick up the cash as quickly as he could manage. “Shit, shit, shit—”

“He’s over there!” A policeman says, pointing over at the man in the baseball cap. Frantically, he grabs you by the arm and yanks you away from Izuku, making you cry out. Izuku scrambles to get you back, but when the man shouts, he goes frozen stiff. “One more step and this one gets the full blast of my quirk!”

You didn’t know it at that time, but he was bluffing about having a quirk that could murder people. With everything flying by so fast, no one probably noticed how badly the robber was shaking, or how his words were rushed and forced.

All you could think about at that moment was how much you didn’t want to die. If you’d just been looking at where you were going, none of this would have happened. Izuku would still be here with you, memories intact and untainted.

The next second is a chaotic one, because that’s when a hero shows up. There’s frantic shouting by the blue-eyed captor, repeating his phrase as you’re frozen stiff in his tight grip. You don’t even want to breathe, too scared that if you move a muscle, that would be your last movement at all.

More people come and the baseball hat dude is getting desperate. There’s a purse with wads of cash at his feet, and you can tell that he just wants to take it and flee. One small movement from the police pushes the baseball cap dude off the edge.

“I said stay back!” He yells frenziedly, activating his quirk.

That was the first time you ever thought: This is it. I’m going to die.

You wish it was something a little less conceited, about how Izuku or your parents felt to have their daughter sent back to them dead after a normal day of school.

That was the only thought that raced past in your mind as desperate arms pull you out of the baseball cap dude’s grasp.

You’re thrown on the hard pavement, the rocky ground causing your knee to bleed out. You don’t feel anything though, because your best friend had taken your place.

“Zuku—!” You wheeze, lunging for him, but it was too late.

The man’s quirk had activated, and Izuku’s head lolls over as his green eyes, full of fear but relief that you’re safe, flutter close. You grab his hand desperately, shaking him. The baseball cap dude doesn’t move as he’s yanked away from Izuku, and in a second he’s back and smirking at you as he’s dragged away from the scene.

“Don’t expect him to be the same when he wakes up,” He yells while getting shoved into a vehicle.

The heroes involve comfort you, but it doesn’t stop you from sobbing like a child, calling out your best friend’s name in loud, ragged sobs.

--

“I saw his memories of you,” He shakes his head in disgust, rolling his eyes. “There were many of you and that short-fused bomb over there—”

“Oi!”

“But it was mostly you.” Isamu continues without missing a beat. “I never saw such unwavering devotion from anyone, much less a child. He pushed you out of the way without hesitation, not even caring about what the consequence was.”

“You want to know why I chose you?” Isamu glares at you, practically spitting now. “It’s because he’d do anything to protect you, just like I’d do anything to provide for my brother,” He snarls, before his glare evaporates into a more sombre expression, expression softening. “And now look at where we both are.” He shrugs, a sad smile stretching across his face.

“They’re both gone.”

Katsuki’s hand on my shoulder is the only form of comfort you feel now. With his help, you stand up shakily, cheeks wet. “Don’t ever, compare my relationship with Zuku with you and your brother. We are nothing alike,” You hiss, turning heel to stalk out of the door. “We’re done here.”

“And I thought you were one of the kinder ones out of all these heartless heroes in the room.” He scoffs, “You still haven’t given me intel about my brother—”

“Your brother can burn in hell for all I care.”

With that, you slam the door shut behind you, and dissolve in Katsuki’s arms.

--

Izuku can’t read you when you get back. You sound fine, but you kept evading conversations pertaining to where you went all through dinner. That’s when the note comes in, so late that Izuku had completely forgotten about its existence. It’s on his mug, the one he always uses whenever he’s working late into the night.

I’m not really up to talking now. Give me a day, and we can discuss your note. But just…leave me alone for the night.

[connorthemaoist]

Marco Valbuena | Chief Information Officer | Communist Party of the Philippines

August 01, 2023

The Marcos regime and its military and police forces must be roundly condemned for the increasingly malevolent use of the deceitfully named Anti-Terrorism Law (ATL) in their heightened campaign of suppression against various democratic forces, critics, and political opponents.

Over the past few weeks, human rights defenders and members of cause-oriented organizations have been “designated” as “terrorists” by the Anti-Terrorism Council or charged in court for “terrorism” in a patently arbitrary manner, without due process and in utter violation of broadly accepted standards of judicial processes.

The ATL is now being used as a tool for suppression with impunity. The most recent victim of the draconian ATL is Hailey Pecayo, a 19-year old human rights worker, who earned the ire of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) for having actively exposed the role of the military for the killing of a nine-year old child in Batangas last year. She is now being charged by the AFP under the ATL, together with other members of their human rights group.

Before Pecayo, at least six others, including Windel Bolinget and three other members of the Cordillera People’s Alliance (CPA), were tagged as “terrorists” by the ATC. In a much earlier resolution, Dr. Natividad Castro, a medical doctor working for the Karapatan Alliance in Mindanao, was similarly tagged by the ATC. It is particularly noteworthy that the ATC resolutions against Bolinget and Castro both came after courts dismissed false charges filed by the AFP linking them to armed actions of the NPA.

The use of the ATL as a tool of suppression has now reached absurd and brazen levels with the ATC “designating” Congressman Arnolfo Teves and 12 others accused of perpetrating the March 4 killing of former Negros Oriental Governor Noel Degamo. Marcos officials have resorted to using the ATL against Teves after failing to build up a court case him. Aiming the ATL against Teves also serves as warning of the extent that Marcos will use the law for his purposes.

The CPP denounces the use of the ATL as a weapon of political suppression. The Party also expresses its continuing protest against the “terrorist designation” of the CPP, the New People’s Army and the National Democratic Front, of its leaders and representatives, and others being linked to the revolutionary cause.

Despite the September 21, 2022 ruling of the Manila Trial Court dismissing the petition filed by the government to declare the CPP and NPA as “terrorists” under the Human Security Act (the former name of the ATL), the Marcos regime and its agents insist on pinning the “terrorist” tag as part of its systematic campaign against all patriotic and democratic forces.

In light of the heightened attacks against the broad democratic sectors using the ATL, the Filipino people’s demand for the abrogation of the draconian law has become even more urgent. All democracy-loving people must make a stand and lend their voice to the struggle to defend the people’s rights and freedoms against state repression.

The Party supports the Filipino people’s clamor to end the so-called “war on terror” which, in fact, is a camouflage for unbounded state terrorism. This fascist framework has long been abused by the Philippine ruling class state, in order to justify the systematic erosion of the people’s civil and political rights.

The military and security establishment has used the “war on terror” to claim extraordinary powers to assert domination over society, take control of the functions of civilian agencies of government and carry out any and all acts of state suppression with gross impunity.

[northcarolinaprelawland-blog]

South Africa’s Prosecution of Israel on the International Stage

By Aaron Johnson, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Class of 2024

February 6, 2024

On December 29th, 2023, South Africa formally filed a complaint with the International Court of Justice (ICJ) pursuant to allegations that Israel’s behavior in the Gaza Strip constituted violations of the United Nation’s 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, or as cited in the filing, the “Genocide Convention”. This filing comes in the wake of the October 7th attacks carried out by Hamas against Israel and the subsequent conflict that has arisen in the Gaza Strip in response.

Conflict and War have been a longstanding constant in the region since the end of the Second World War, with the main driving factors being Israel’s right to exist in the Holy Land and the Palestinian people’s same right to that land and self-determination. Through years of conflict between the Israeli and Palestinian people, along with Arab neighbors, Israel has succeeded in successful control of much of the Holy Land, leaving a majority of the Palestinian people to live in the areas of the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights.

Gaza had been directly occupied by Israel from 1967-2005[1]. In 2006, Hamas were elected as the Palestinian Government in Gaza following the Israeli exit. Since Hamas’ rise to power, they have launched several rocket campaigns and forceful attacks earning them a widely recognizes distinction as a terrorist organization.

The current campaign in Gaza has largely been contextualized behind Israel receiving the largest attack on a Jewish population since the Holocaust, Israel’s right to defend herself, and the extreme number of Israeli hostages taken into the Gaza Strip on October 7th. However, Gaza is still a highly populated, relatively small area with massive amounts of civilians. A ground invasion and/or bombing campaign in such an area can be painstakingly hard to carry out in order to stop or limit the loss of civilian lives. This is exactly how a humanitarian crisis can begin in a war zone, and where large portions of the international community have widely condemned Israel for its response to October 7th in Gaza. Mass loss of civilian lives in Gaza is at the heart of South Africa’s filing with the ICJ.

The three main accusations leveled against Israel in the filing are as follows:

      C. Genocidal Acts Committed against the Palestinian People1;

      D. Expressions of Genocidal Intent against the Palestinian People by Israeli State                                                                            Officials and Others2;

      E. Recognition of Israel’s Genocidal Intent Against Palestinians3;

Under Genocidal Acts Committed against the Palestinian People, South Africa details a total 55,000 wounded Palestinian civilians, most of whom are women and children. They also describe massive bombing campaigns without targets, including the demolition of hospitals and schools, the killing of doctors and journalists, the mass arrest of civilians, and  forced expulsion from homes.

Under the Expressions of Genocidal Intent Against the Palestinian People by Israeli Officials and Others, South Africa cites sixteen different Israeli Ministers and Army officials for Genocidal statements and actions, including Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Herzog. The former is accused of statements quoting the destruction of Amalek from the Bible which asks the Israelites to kill men, women, and children alike. President Herzog is quoted as stating the “entire nation… is responsible” and civilians were “aware” and “involved”.

South Africa claims, through these acts, Israel has violated the Genocide Convention by:

Failing to prevent genocide;

Committing genocide;

Conspiring to commit genocide;

Direct and public incitement of genocide;

Attempting to commit genocide;

Complicity in genocide;

and has sought relief by pleading for Israel to immediately stop genocidal behaviors and/or behaviors that risk Palestinian lives, punishment for those who have committed genocidal acts, safe return for Gaza civilians to their homes, conservation of evidence in any potential investigation into genocidal acts, and assurances and guarantees that Genocide Convention be followed in accordance with its obligations.

On January 26th, 2024, the ICJ released a Summary Order based on South Africa’s complaint finding Israel may have violated certain Articles in the Genocide Convention. Upon awaiting the court’s final decision, Israel has been ordered to4:

Prevent and punish incitement to commit genocide;

Immediately enable humanitarian assistance and needed basic services;

Prevent the destruction and/or preserve all evidence of genocide in accordance with the Genocide Convention;

Prevent killing and/or causing mental and physical harm to civilians;

Prevent measures intending on preventing the birth of civilians;

Submit a report within one month of the order, detailing all measures taken to comply with the court’s order;

The glaring problem with both South Africa’s complaint and the summary order issued by the ICJ is in its credibility and jurisdiction. Although the ICJ is the highest Judicial Court in the United Nations, it has relatively low enforcement powers. In essence, the ICJ’s “police force” is the Security Council with China, Russia, the United States, the United Kingdom, and France as its permanent members. Such great ideological differences on the council make it almost impossible for prosecution and justice to take place.

The United States’ close relationship with Israel will ensure that Israel, if found guilty, would never be brought to justice. The same can be said for Vladimir Putin’s war crimes in Ukraine. The Security Council would never agree on the validity of an ICJ ruling. Only twice has the United Nations been able to prosecute genocide and war crimes, the aftermath of the Bosnian and Rwandan genocides respectively.

Since December 29th, the three western nations on the Security Council have all stated their opposition to South Africa’s complaint illustrating the effective dead-end this case will inevitably face. However, the case still serves as an opportunity for countries in opposition to Israel to highlight perceived violations of human rights and the rules of war on an international stage. For South Africa specifically, this can be extremely important. The country has long tried to shake the legacy of Apartheid internationally and propel itself into a leadership role on the African Continent. This complaint serves as both a genuine plea to the ICJ and an emphasis on the moral character that South Africa has acquired since the 90’s.

______________________________________________________________

1 Although Israel formally withdrew from Gaza, the United Nations, a vast majority of Governments, and Humanitarian Groups still view Israel as occupiers through there control of all of Gaza’s borders, seas, air space, and essential resources. This is where the term Gaza as an “open-air prison” stems from.

[1] Application Instituting Proceedings. https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20231228-app-01-00-en.pdf  pg. 30. Accessed 14 Jan. 2024.

[2] Application Instituting Proceedings. pg. 59

[3] Application Instituting Proceedings. pg. 67

[4] Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel). https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-sum-01-00-en.pdf Accessed 01 Feb. 2024.

[5] South Africa says Israel’s campaign in Gaza amounts to genocide. What can the UN do about it?. https://apnews.com/article/un-court-south-africa-israel-gaza-genocide 71be2ce7f09bfee05a7cae26689ee262. Accessed 11 Jan. 2024.

[6] South Africa files case at ICJ accusing Israel of ‘genocidal acts’ in Gaza. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/12/29/south-africa-files-case-at-icj-accusing-israel-of-genocidal-acts-in-gaza. Accessed 14 Jan. 2024.

[7] Israel must comply with key ICJ ruling ordering it do all in its power to prevent genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/01/israel-must-comply-with-key-icj-ruling-ordering-it-do-all-in-its-power-to-prevent-genocide-against-palestinians-in-gaza/. Accessed 01 Feb. 2024.

[prelawland]

Ukraine and the Agricultural Imports Dispute

By Summer Lee, University of Colorado Boulder Class of 2023

September 27, 2023

In order to protect local farmers and the country’s economic interests, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia carried out a ban on agricultural imports from Ukraine and the transport of Ukrainian agricultural goods across its borders. The types of goods affected by this ban include cereal, grain, fruits, vegetables, and oil seeds. Due to these bans, Ukraine filed a dispute with the World Trade Organization (WTO), claiming that the three countries’ actions did not adhere to the responsibilities and requirements outlined by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the Agreement on Agriculture. The purpose of the GATT is to minimize trade barriers and promote free trade, while the Agreement on Agriculture aims to support international agricultural policies that promote fair trade and market competition. Ukraine has appealed to both of these agreements to ultimately argue that the import bans economically discriminate against the Ukranian agricultural sector and were implemented through an unfair process. In response to these claims, the three countries emphasized that the bans were not intended to purposely hurt Ukraine’s economy. However, Ukraine still strongly reprimands the ban on the grounds that the Russio-Ukrainian War has already negatively impacted Ukraine’s economic growth and trade mobilization. Under the WTO, Ukraine plans on consulting with Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia to discuss possible solutions in the immediate future.

For full article please visit

Ukraine Requests Consultations with Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia Following Recent Bans on its Agricultural Products

at

Colorado PreLaw Land

[coprelawland]

Ukraine Requests Consultations with Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia Following Recent Bans on its Agricultural Products

By Summer Lee, University of Colorado Boulder Class of 2023

September 25, 2023

On September 15, 2023, Poland, Hungary, and Slovakia banned imports of agricultural products from Ukraine, such as wheat, corn, sunflower seeds, and colza seeds [2]. The three countries claimed that prior to the ban, the influx of agricultural imports from Ukraine had significantly reduced the domestic prices of oilseeds and grains. Due to this, the countries also claimed that profits and market competitiveness of local farmers have also decreased and that the bans were necessary to address these issues [1]. 

Consequently, the complainant party, Ukraine, filed a dispute with respondent parties Poland, Hungary, and Slovakia on September 21, 2023, to the World Trade Organization (WTO). Ukraine asserted that the importation bans were not in compliance with Articles 5, 10 and 11 of the 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), along with Article 4 and Article 5 of the Agreement on Agriculture [2]. 

Article 5 of the GATT states that governments who have signed the agreement must allow goods to be freely transported through its territories, regardless of the origin of the product or trade routes used during the shipping process [4]. Appealing to Article 5, Section 2 of the GATT, Ukraine argued that the importation ban is unacceptable because it restricts Ukraine’s ability to freely transport agricultural products through Poland, Hungary, and Slovakia to other members of the European Union (such as France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, etc.) [2]. Ukraine then appealed to Article 10, Section 1 of the GATT, stating that the bans implemented by the respondent parties did not allow the Ukrainian government and trading companies to adapt to the new policies accordingly. The complainant party also mentioned how the restrictions on its agricultural imports to Poland, Hungary, and Slovakia is inconsistent with the requirements set forth in Article 11 of the GATT [3]. In accordance with Article 11, Section 1 of the GATT, countries under the agreement must not impose restrictions on imported goods besides taxes, duties, and other quantifiable charges [4]. With this in mind, Ukraine appealed to Article 11, Section 1 on the assumption that the ban on agricultural imports is not associated with quantitative restrictions such as taxes, fees, and duties. 

The complainant party used Article 4, Section 2 and Article 5 of the Agreement on Agriculture to indicate that (1) since the respondent parties’ method of implementing the importation bans has not been recognized as “ordinary customs duties”, the action is in non-compliance with the agreement, and (2) the import ban goes against the principle of economic non-discrimination because it only applies to Ukraine’s imports and not towards other member countries of the WTO [3]. 

 In addition, the complainant party also argued that the importation bans are detrimental to Ukraine’s economic well-being. On the pretext of the Russo-Ukrainian war, Ukraine emphasized how its economy has steadily declined. According to the World Economic Situation and Prospects, Ukraine’s economy has contracted over 30% in 2022, which indicates that Ukraine’s GDP growth has declined and unemployment rates have increased during the war [3]. Ultimately, Ukraine argues that the implementation of importation bans on its agricultural products will have a negative impact on its economic circumstances and trade mobility. 

In response to Ukraine, Poland emphasized that the importation ban was intended to protect its economic interests and local farmers. Similarly, Hungary’s government claimed that the ban was intended to help local farmers that were economically struggling due to the significant increases in Ukrainian agricultural imports [5].

To address these conflicts in interest, Ukraine is currently requesting a consultation with Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia under the World Trade Organization to discuss possible solutions. If the countries do not find a solution to the dispute after 60 days, Ukraine must request a panel of members from the WTO to help decide each countries rights and responsibilities under the WTO Agreement [6]. 

______________________________________________________________

Summer Lee is pursuing a B.A. in International Affairs at the University of Colorado Boulder. She is planning to graduate in the Fall of 2023.

______________________________________________________________

[1] Thomson Reuters. (2023, September 18). Ukraine Says it Will Sue Poland, Hungary and Solvakia Over Food Import Bans. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/ukraine-pla ns-sue-poland-hungary-slovakia-over- food-import-ban-2023-09-18/#:~:text=Restrictions%20imposed% 20by%20the%20European,such%20cargoes%20for%20export%20elsewhere. 

[2] World Trade Organization. (2023, September 21). Ukraine Initiates WTO Dispute Complaints Against 

Hungary, Poland and Slovak Republic. WTO News: Dispute Settlement. https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news23_e/ds619_620_621rfc_21sep23_e.htm.  

[3] United Nations. (n.d.). One Year of the War in Ukraine Leaves Lasting Scars on the Global Economy. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. https://www.un.org/en/desa/one-year-war-ukraine-leaves-lasting-scars-global-economy#:~:text=Ukraine%27s%20economy%20suffered%20heavy%20losses,remained%20steadfast%20over%20this%20period 

[4] World Trade Organization. (n.d.). The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1947). Legal Texts: GATT 1947. https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/gatt47_01_e.htm#articleV. 

[5] Keaten, J., & Novikov, I. (2023, September 19). Ukraine Complains to WTO About Hungary, Poland and Slovakia Banning its Food Products. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/ukraine- wto-complaint-europe-grain-ban-2bdecbd0d0c4e46f2f24f33d858bf8f1. 

[6] World Trade Organization. (2004). The Process--Stages in a Typical WTO Dispute Settlement Case. Dispute Settlement System Training Module. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/disp u_e/disp_settlement_cbt_e/c6s3p1_e.htm. 

[louisianaprelawland-blog]

The Case That Set a Precedent

By Kayleigh Reaux​ Louisiana State University Class of 2024

June 26, 2023

International Law, a field somewhat deemed as irrelevant for anything other than reaching a course requirement. However, International Law is very important and woven into our everyday life. In the American Journal of International Law, or AJIL, a very profound case caught my eye. In the Democratic Republic of Congo v. Uganda case, we as a people are presented with an opportunity to delve into the world of International Law to gain insight into the world of international litigation, specifically between sovereign nations. After exploring the case, I feel I am now able to provide a brief review that will shed light onto the implications it holds for international law. In this article, I hope to provide a deeper understanding into the complex works involved in seeking not only adjudication, but arbitration, and advisory opinions within our international legal system. This article will be similar to a regular case brief and cover many of the same concepts; for example, the facts of the case, the issue within the case, the decision and reason of the case, the concurring and dissenting opinions (if available), and the case summary. The article shall be insightful and provide valuable information into the field of International Law. 

In the Democratic Republic of Congo v. Uganda case, the facts can be perceived as the Democratic Republic of Congo (or DRC), on June 23rd, 1999, filed an application in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to set court proceedings against Uganda for acts of armed aggression made by them in the DRC’s territory. These acts of aggression were a violation of a charter formed by the United Nations and a violation of a charter of the Organization of African Unity. This aggression was part of a Civil War in which Uganda was involved; their troops entered the DRC on July 28th in 1998. They were asked by the President of the DRC, Kabila, to retreat out of their territory, but they refused and therefore ignited the violation of not just the sovereignty and territory of the DRC and the human rights and international humanitarian law. The DRC asked for removal of these infiltrating troops, along with compensation for their suffering. The main and consistent question within this case was whether or not Uganda did violate human rights and the International Humanitarian Law, entitling the DRC to compensation.

The decision and reason of the case is up to the International Court of Justice. With all the facts in hand they faced many questions on how to proceed with a judgement. In them having jurisdiction, the court found that Uganda did in fact violate these laws in question, being the Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law. However, the Court did not rule in favor of the DRC regarding the violations of Uganda to them. The Court did however decide to grant reparations to the DRC on February 9, 2022. This court proceeding determined the level of compensation to be given to them under their previous 2005 judgement: coming after the initial and finding Uganda in fact in breach of these obligations to the DRC under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and a violation of the principle of non-intervention. The compensation would be $225 million for damage to persons, $40 million for damage to property, and $60 million for damage related to natural resources. The outcome of this case is important in the court because it resulted in an elevated standard for claiming macroeconomic damages. This court gave way for acceptance of flexibility in this evaluation of damages. Hereafter, this judgement in 2022 finally concluded the legal dispute between the DRC and Uganda that was twenty-three years old. It can be known and evidenced that the Court’s decision rested heavily upon Article 31 of the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts or ARSIWA.

Furthermore, within the case of the Democratic Republic of Congo v. Uganda I found an exceptional understanding of International Law and gained insight into process of litigation. This twenty-three-year legal dispute was implemental in my opinion within the International Court of Justice. Even if our Court is constantly changing, to me the decision made in this case made some remarkable demonstrations within this Court. By effectively presenting the key elements within this case, I feel I have successfully gifted a deeper comprehension of adjudication, arbitration, or just the international legal system. I hope I have also proven International Law to be a key component in our everyday lives and justice system. There is an abundance of umbrellas under International Law that need to be explored to understand law as a whole. From learning more through the exploration of this case, and other International Law journals, I feel I have gained a substantial amount of knowledge and trust in International Law as a knowledgeable field of study. I have faith that this article has applied and presented all evidence of this and more.

[xtruss]

Infinite Scroll: Is A.I. Art Stealing from Artists?

According to the lawyer behind a new class-action suit, every image that a generative tool produces “is an infringing, derivative work.”

— By Kyle Chayka | February 10, 2023

Last Year, A Tennessee-based Artist Named Kelly McKernan noticed that their name was being used with increasing frequency in A.I.-driven image generation. McKernan makes paintings that often feature nymphlike female figures in an acid-colored style that blends Art Nouveau and science fiction. A list published in August, by a Web site called Metaverse Post, suggested “Kelly McKernan” as a term to feed an A.I. generator in order to create “Lord of the Rings”-style art. Hundreds of other artists were similarly listed according to what their works evoked: anime, modernism, “Star Wars.” On the Discord chat that runs an A.I. generator called Midjourney, McKernan discovered that users had included their name more than twelve thousand times in public prompts. The resulting images—of owls, cyborgs, gothic funeral scenes, and alien motorcycles—were distinctly reminiscent of McKernan’s works. “It just got weird at that point. It was starting to look pretty accurate, a little infringe-y,” they told me. “I can see my hand in this stuff, see how my work was analyzed and mixed up with some others’ to produce these images.”

Last month, McKernan joined a class-action lawsuit with two other artists, Sarah Andersen and Karla Ortiz, filed by the attorneys Matthew Butterick and Joseph Saveri, against Midjourney and two other A.I. imagery generators, Stable Diffusion and DreamUp. (Other tools, such as dall-e, run on the same principles.) All three models make use of laion-5B, a nonprofit, publicly available database that indexes more than five billion images from across the Internet, including the work of many artists. The alleged wrongdoing comes down to what Butterick summarized to me as “the three ‘C’s”: The artists had not consented to have their copyrighted artwork included in the laion database; they were not compensated for their involvement, even as companies including Midjourney charged for the use of their tools; and their influence was not credited when A.I. images were produced using their work. When producing an image, these generators “present something to you as if it’s copyright free,” Butterick told me, adding that every image a generative tool produces “is an infringing, derivative work.”

Copyright claims based on questions of style are often tricky. In visual art, courts have sometimes ruled in favor of the copier rather than the copied. When the artist Richard Prince incorporated photographs by Patrick Cariou into his work, for instance, a 2013 court case found that some of the borrowing was legal under transformative use—Prince had changed the source material enough to escape any claim of infringement. In music, recent judgments tend to be more conservative. Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams lost a 2013 case against the Marvin Gaye estate, which alleged that their song “Blurred Lines” was too close to Gaye’s “Got to Give It Up.” The intellectual-property lawyer Kate Downing wrote, in a recent essay on Butterick and Saveri’s suit published on her personal Web site, that the A.I. image generators might be closer to the former than the latter: ​​“It may well be argued that the ‘use’ of any one image from the training data is . . . not substantial enough to call the output a derivative work of any one image.” “Mathematically speaking, the work comes from everything,” Downing told me.

But Butterick and Saveri allege that what A.I. generators do falls short of transformative use. There is no transcending of the source material, just a mechanized “blending together,” Butterick said. “We’re not litigating image by image, we’re litigating the whole technique behind the system.” The litigators are not alone. Last week, Getty Images filed a lawsuit against Stable Diffusion alleging that the generator’s use of Getty stock photography amounts to “brazen infringement . . . on a staggering scale.” Whatever their legal strengths, such claims possess a certain moral weight. A.I. generators could not operate without the labor of humans like McKernan who unwittingly provide source material. As the technology critic and philosopher Jaron Lanier wrote in his 2013 book “Who Owns the Future?,” “Digital information is really just people in disguise.” (A spokesperson from Stability AI, the studio that developed Stable Diffusion, said in a statement that “the allegations in this suit represent a misunderstanding of how generative A.I. technology works and the law surrounding copyright,” but provided no further detail. Neither DeviantArt, which owns DreamUp, nor Midjourney responded to requests for comment.)

Visual artists began reaching out to Butterick after he and Saveri filed a lawsuit, last November, in the related but distinct realm of software copyrights. The target of the earlier suit was Copilot, an A.I.-driven coding assistant developed by GitHub and OpenAI. Copilot is trained on code that is publicly available online. Coders who post their projects on open-source platforms retain the copyright to their work—under certain licenses, anyone who uses the code must credit its creator. Copilot did not. Like the artists whose work feeds Midjourney, human coders suddenly found their specialized labor reproduced infinitely, quickly, and cheaply without attribution. Butterick and Saveri’s legal complaint (against OpenAI, GitHub, and Microsoft, which acquired GitHub in 2018) argued that Copilot’s actions amount to “software piracy on an unprecedented scale.” In January, the defendants filed to have the case dismissed. “We will file oppositions to these motions,” Butterick said.

Butterick told me that, given the proliferation of A.I., “everybody who creates for a living should be in code red.” Writers had their turn to be spooked in January, when BuzzFeed announced that it would use OpenAI’s new large language model, ChatGPT, to augment its creation of quizzes. McKernan, who draws income from print sales as well as commissioned illustrations, told me they suspect that the amount of work available in their field is already declining as A.I. tools become more accessible online. “There are publishers that are using A.I. instead of hiring cover artists,” McKernan told me. “I can pay my rent with just one cover, and we’re seeing that already disappearing.” They added, “We’re just the canaries in the coal mine.”

In some sense, you could say that artists are losing their monopoly on being artists. With generative A.I., any user can become an author of sorts. In late January, Mayk.it, a Los Angeles-based music-making app, released Drayk.it, a Web site that allowed users to create A.I.-generated Drake songs based on a given prompt. The results could not be mistaken for actual Drake tracks; they tend toward the lo-fi and the absurd. But they possess a certain fundamental Drakeness: lounge beats, depressive lyrics, monotone delivery. The company’s head of product, Neer Sharma, told me that users had created hundreds of thousands of A.I. Drake songs, a new track every three seconds. The site drew upon software resources such as Tacotron and Uberduck, which generate voices and offer specific voice models, including one trained on the œuvre of Drake. The Web site includes a disclaimer that the songs it generates are parodies, which are protected under fair use, and Sharma told me that the company didn’t receive any complaints from Drake’s camp. But the site has already shut down. The project was designed “just to test out the tech,” Sharma said. “We didn’t expect it to get this big.” The team is now preparing more “A.I. music drops.”

As Sharma sees it, the increasing accessibility of A.I. means that “everything just becomes remixable.” The artists who might thrive in this scenario are those who have the most replicable or exportable “vibe and aesthetic,” he said, among them Drake, the rare pop star who has embraced his status as an open-ended meme. Fans could already dress like Drake or act like him; now they can make his music, too, and the line between fan and creator will blur further as the generative technology improves. Sharma said that the company has heard from executives at music labels who are interested in exploring the creation of A.I. voice models for their artists. He predicted that musicians who resist being “democratized”—giving creative agency to their fans—will be left behind. “The people who could win before just by being there will not necessarily win tomorrow,” Sharma said.

A startup called Authentic Artists is seeking to bypass human artists altogether by creating musician characters based on A.I.-generated styles of music. Its label, WarpSound, features “virtual artists” like GLiTCH, a computer-rendered figure derived from a Bored Ape Yacht Club N.F.T., who plays genres such as “chillwave” and “glitch hop” in endlessly streaming feeds of auto-generated music. Authentic Artists’ founder Chris McGarry told me that the character is meant to give a face to the A.I. machine. “We wanted to answer the question, what is the source of the music? A semiconductor or cloud-based server or ones and zeros didn’t seem to be a terribly interesting answer to that question,” he said.

Listening to Authentic Artists’ music, however, is a bit like trying to enjoy the wavering buzz of highway traffic. If you’re not paying attention, it can serve as a passable background soundtrack, but the moment you tune in closely any sense of coherent sound gives way to an uncanny randomness. It called to my mind a much-memed comment that the Studio Ghibli director Hayao Miyazaki made after being shown a particularly grotesque A.I.-generated animation in 2016: “I strongly feel that this is an insult to life itself.” I wouldn’t go quite so far, but Authentic Artists’ project does strike me as an insult to human-made music. They can manufacture sound, but they can’t manufacture the feeling or creative intention that even the most amateur musicians put into a recording.

Kelly McKernan sometimes snoops on conversations about generative A.I. on Reddit or Discord chats, in part to see how users perceive the role of original artists in the A.I. image-making process. McKernan said that they often see people criticizing artists who are against A.I.: “They have this belief that career artists, people who have dedicated their whole lives to their work, are gatekeeping, keeping them from making the art they want to make. They think we’re élitist and keeping our secrets.” Defenders of A.I. art-making could point out that artists have always taken from and riffed on each other’s work, from the ancient Romans making copies of even older Greek sculptures to Roy Lichtenstein reproducing comic-book frames as highbrow Pop art. Maybe A.I. imagery is just a new wave of appropriation art? (It lacks any conceptual intention, however.) Downing, the intellectual-property lawyer, argued in her piece that the prompts that users input into A.I. generators may amount to independent acts of invention. “There is no Stable Diffusion without users pouring their own creative energy into its prompts,” she wrote.

McKernan told me about Beep Boop Art, a Facebook group with forty-seven thousand followers that posts A.I.-generated art and runs an online storefront selling prints and merchandise. The images tend toward the fantastical: a wizard hat or a lunar landscape in a Lisa Frank-ish style, or a tree house growing above the ocean. It may not be a direct riff on McKernan’s work, but it does reflect a banal over-all sameness across generated art. McKernan described typical A.I. style as having “this general sugary, candy look,” adding, “It looks pretty, but it tastes terrible. It has no depth, but it serves the purpose that they want.” The new generation of tools offers the instant gratification of a single image, shorn of the messy association with a single, living artist. One question is who gets to profit from such works. Another is more existential. “It kind of boils down to: what is art?” McKernan said. “Is art the process, is art the human component, is art the conversation? All of that is out of the picture once you’re just generating it.” ♦

[georgiaprelawland]

Is It Legal To Require Women To Be In The Selective Service System?

By Steven Altman, Kennesaw State University Class of 2023

June 17, 2021

On Monday morning, July 7, 2021, the United States Supreme Court denied hearing the case of the National Coalition for Men versus Selective Service System and delegated this issue to Congress to solve. [3]This case is based on the requirement that women should register in the selective service system if there were to be a military draft in the future. This now raises the question of the history of women and the selective service and its legality.

This story starts with the passing of the Military Selective Service Act of 1948 which requires only men to register with the selective service system for possible service in the military in the case that the President and Congress enact a military draft. [6] At the end of the Vietnam War in 1974, the registration was discontinued and then re-enacted by President Jimmy Carter in 1980 during tensions of the Cold War. During the transition of reenacting registration Congress vigorously debated on whether women should be required to register in the selective service system as well. In the end, Congress decided to keep the MSSA as is and keep it as a requirement for men only. Due to this, this prompted the United States Supreme Court case Rostker versus Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57.

Rostker versus Goldberg was prompted by a group of men that claimed the MSSA was a violation of the Due Process Clause of the 5th amendment. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court and in a 6-3 decision, the court decided that the MSSA was not in violation of the Constitution. [6] The court reasoned that the draft was made to get more combat troops in times when they are needed. At the time, women were not allowed in any combat roles in the military, so the court deemed it unnecessary to make it a requirement for women to register in the selective service. [6]

This issue began to rise again in 2013 when the Department of Defense announced that they would begin opening combat roles in the military to women. By 2015, 100% of the jobs in the military were now eligible for women to enter. [1]

With women now being eligible for all military jobs, Congress decided to fund a Commission that would assess the Selective Service System as a whole and to give their recommendation on whether women should be required to be registered.

In March 2020, the National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service published their official report and recommendations. After extensive research and interviews were done, the commission made their recommendation that the MSSA should be expanded to women. [2] They explained in the report, “After careful consideration of a diverse range of perspectives, the Commission determined that the time is right to extend the registration requirement to all Americans, men and women. Doing so promotes the national security of the United States by allowing the President to leverage the full range of talent and skills available during a national mobilization.” [2] The commission stated several reasons for the decision of their recommendation including the fully expanded role of women in the military and their combat readiness.

The commission also heard arguments against putting women in the Selective Service System.  One argument raised was that a woman’s special role in society as a mother, caregivers, etc., should not conform to that requirement. [2]

Amid the Commission conducting their findings was the case of the National Coalition for Men versus Selective Service System. The case was heard by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The Coalition’s argument was that now because women are allowed in combat roles, the decision of Rostker versus Goldberg was no longer valid. They also cited it was a violation of the Due Process Clause because of gender discrimination and the fact that men face hefty penalties when they do not register with the Selective Service, such as fines and not being able to obtain government jobs. [5] The district court handed down their decision in February of 2019 and decided that it was a violation of the Constitution because of women now being able to serve in all positions of the military.

The decision was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, and they reversed the decision because the district court had no authority to amount a decision and that the Supreme Court was the only one who could decide on this case. [5] The National Coalition for Men filed a Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court but the case we denied being heard on the morning of July 7th. In a statement written by Justice Sotomayor she explains, “It remains to be seen, of course, whether Congress will end gender-based registration under the Military Selective Service Act. But at least for now, the Court’s longstanding deference to Congress on matters of national defense and military affairs cautions against granting review while Congress actively weighs the issue.” [4]

With the issue now in the hand of the United States Congress, all there is left to do is wait. The history of women and the Selective Service is long standing. Even though the decision lies on Congress to make it a requirement for women to be in the Selective Service, there is no doubt that women’s roles in the military are forever expanding. With women getting more opportunities than ever to serve in combat roles in the military, it is a clear line that men and women can serve on the battlefield together and serve their country.

______________________________________________________________

1.      Chappell, B. (2015, December 3). Pentagon Says Women Can Now Serve In Front-Line Ground Combat Positions. NPR. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/03/458319524/pentagon-will-allow-women-in-frontline-ground-combat-positions.

2.      National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service , Inspired to Serve The Final Report of the National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service (2020). https://www.inspire2serve.gov/reports/final-report.

3.      Gresko, J. (2021, June 7). High court won't review men-only draft registration law. AP NEWS. https://apnews.com/article/us-supreme-court-courts-government-and-politics-a3674ff127809b927debc8b5910a0d00.

4.      National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System (United States Supreme Court June 7, 2021). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-928_e1p3.pdf.

5.      Wikimedia Foundation. (2021, June 8). National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Coalition_for_Men_v._Selective_Service_Syste.

6.      Wikimedia Foundation. (2021, June 9). Rostker v. Goldberg. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rostker_v._Goldberg.

[unwilting]

Israel, backed by the imperialists, has been constantly attacking the Palestinian people, occupying their land, and denying at gunpoint the Palestinian nation’s right to self-determination.

The Israeli reactionary bourgeoisie has expelled the Palestinian people from their land, shrinking their living space day by day, and has continuously expanded the occupied territories. It constantly opens space for new settlers and increases these settlements to the detriment of the Palestinian people. The number of Palestinians expelled from their country has long exceeded those who continue to live in Palestine. And the latter are struggling to exercise the most basic human rights, the right to life, let alone exercising the right to freely determining their destiny.

Clarity is essential. Neutrality or a position of “mediation” cannot be developed in the face of Israeli Zionism’s inhumanity. The Palestinian Resistance demanding national political equality of rights and the right to statehood is just and must be supported. Any “solution” that does not recognize the equality of rights of the Palestinians cannot be a solution and cannot put an end to national conflicts.

Israel must stop all attacks immediately!

The occupation must end and Israel must withdraw from all occupied territories!

Israel must stop its policy of opening new settlements!

Jerusalem’s status as capital must end and the city must be restored to its former status!

Full equality of national rights for the Palestinian nation – the right to self-determination, including the right to statehood!

[newyorkprelawland-blog]

The Government Edicts Doctrine And The Future Of American Legislation

By Arnelle Jean-Jacques, University at Albany Class of 2023

March 26, 2021

While the Coronavirus pandemic swiftly made its way throughout the United States, the Supreme Court, as per usual, found no time to waste. In a year that saw several movements advocating for racial justice and gender equality, what unbelievably flew under the radar was an incredibly significant expansion to a historic intellectual property statute that dates back several centuries. 

On April 27, 2020, while much of the nation had - for the most part - assimilated into quarantine life, the Supreme Court ruled that the state of Georgia could not trademark interpretations to its official state law code, thus expanding the use of the Government Edicts Doctrine, which in simpler terms, states that no one can “own the law.” The theory behind this notion was formed using the ideologies of three pre-Civil War media and intellectual property cases: Wheaton v. Peters, Banks v. Manchester, and Callaghan v. Myers. While Wheaton and Callaghan are similar in that the court held that reporters cannot have a copyright on the court’s opinions[1], Banks’ approach offered a different perspective, with the court holding that judges themselves cannot establish their own “ownership” over any holdings, rulings or other work that they perform in their work in the judicial system.[2] The viewpoints and angles that took form from each of these issues and contributed to these holdings ultimately allowed the Supreme Court to establish a comprehensive dogma that would serve as the groundwork for order in these corporate and federal settings.

The ruling was decided in a 5-4 decision when Georgia’s Code Revision Commission submitted their annual annotated code, the OCGA, through a process that includes creation by the Code Revision Commission and authorization by the state’s constitution. The Commission would then delegate the creation of these annotations to LexisNexis, a private platform, under a “work made for hire” agreement, which under the work-for-hire doctrine, gives the CRC ownership of the annotations.[3]  However, Public.Resource.org, a nonprofit organization, began distributing hard copies of the code and publishing it online under various domains. Committed to securing public access to government materials, its website contained an easily downloadable link that was posted without permission from the state of Georgia.[4]

Initially settled in favor of Georgia in the District Court, the case was reversed by the Eleventh Circuit and its holdings were established there.[5] However, while Chief Justice John Roberts issued the majority ruling, several other justices, including Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg filed dissenting opinions.

The important question to be analyzed here, however, is simple: Despite the obvious conflict in opinion within the Supreme Court, what will this mean for the future of intellectual property? How will the motives behind this legal action impact future legislative efforts?

The court opinion of Roberts essentially broke down each part of the historic doctrine so that it could be thoroughly investigated, arguing that although the Copyright Act grants protection over “original works of authorship,” that protection does not extend to these annotations, as similar to the way Banks v. Manchester held that judges who possess the ability to make laws cannot possess a copyright on their material, Georgia’s annotations were created by the CRC, which is a body of state legislature.[6] While the doctrine’s expansion to the legislative branch is, in a sense, avant garde, it is still sure to hold significant weight in the ways in which statutes are formed and distributed.

It is highly obvious that the presence of the Government Edicts Doctrine was felt throughout the course of this trial and its eventual ruling. Because of this, it is evident that this case, like the doctrine itself, has set a precedent for cases, holdings, and rulings regarding edicts that will inevitably take place in the future. The legal environment of intellectual property and government edicts will undoubtedly evolve so that a greater structure is present in the production of statutes that will go beyond the concepts stressed in the doctrine and in Georgia v. P.R.O.

Its importance clearly cannot be overstated, as it, of course, expanded public access to the law, thus reflecting the ideologies of today’s times which continue to rapidly evolve and justifying the critical notion that the future of a nation, whether successful or vain, depends on the ways in which the signs of the times are interpreted and how that affects the American people.

More importantly, however, is the crucial fact that judicial integrity will arguably be the biggest influence in copyright decision making, and as evidenced by the events surrounding and occurring throughout the course of this case, this integrity will require a keen and visible sense of coherence and consistency in order to truly prevail throughout the legislative branch. The internal work to be done in Georgia and across the country will, in turn, establish an even greater relationship between legislation, work-for-hires , and individual contractors.

______________________________________________________________

[1] Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 591, 8 L.Ed. 1055, Callaghan v. Myers, 128 U.S. 617, 9 S.Ct. 177, 32 L.Ed. 547

[2] Banks v. Manchester, 128 U.S. 244, 9 S.Ct. 36, 32 L.Ed. 425

[3] 17 U.S.C. 101

[4] PRO, 140 S. Ct. at 1505.

[5] Intellectual Property Alert, Vorys

[6] Georgia , et al., Petitioners v. Public.Resource.Org, INC., 140 S.Ct. 1498 (2020).

[naturalrights-retard]

In the “collective West,” hypocrisy rules the narrative, most recently in regard to the ICC and the “kidnapped” children of Ukraine.

In America, the scurrilous neocon and warmonger propagandist Max Boot weighed in on the meaningless and unenforcible decision to arrest President Putin. Boot’s argument is delusional, but then neocons thrive on lies and delusions. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine can be seen as a desperate gambit to increase Russia’s declining population at gunpoint.

That the Russians have kidnapped at least 11,000 Ukrainian children looks especially sinister in light of Russia’s baby deficit. https://t.co/bC1Qgi7VTL

— Max Boot 🇺🇦🇺🇸 (@MaxBoot) March 14, 2023 Propaganda, pure and simple. Boot is an accessory to mass murder, having advocated the invasion of Iraq, the slaughter of over a million Iraqis, and the engineered destruction of their country.

The hypocritical ICC didn’t bother to contrast and compare Putin’s supposed abduction of Ukrainian children to an organized mass kidnapping of Vietnamese children. It was dubbed “Operation Babylift,” ordered by then President Ford, and was conducted at the end of the Vietnam War as the USG evacuated, having lost the war.

The Vietnamese children abducted without permission were described as “orphans,” although many had parents and relatives that were left behind. 3,300 children, described as “infants” (many were older children), were parceled out to families in America, Australia, West Germany, and France.

The “rescue” of these children was an organized act of kidnapping pure and simple, yet in the Land of Amnesia, millions of Americans know nothing about it (or, for that matter, the Vietnam War itself and the brutal destruction of Southeast Asia).

In 1975, a class action suit was filed in San Francisco on behalf of the kidnapped children.

“The suit seeks to enjoin adoption proceedings until it has been ascertained either that the parents or appropriate relatives in Vietnam have consented to their adoption or that these parents or relatives cannot be found,” The Adoption History Project notes. “The Complaint alleged that several of the Vietnamese orphans brought to the United States under Operation Babylift stated they are not orphans and that they wish to return to Vietnam.”

A statement issued on April 4, 1975, by “professors of ethics and religion,” pointed out that many “of the children are not orphans; their parents or relatives may still be alive, although displaced, in Vietnam… The Vietnamese children should be allowed to stay in Vietnam where they belong.”

The operation was celebrated by the corporate media and “Hollywood’s celebrity elite… [and, as a propaganda event] generated a spectacle of celebration and emphasized that the babies were more than just average orphans,” writes US History Scene. Uncritical acceptance of the Vietnam war orphans did not last long. A variety of American voices that ranged from child psychologists to news reporters to the casual observer soon began asking whether the evacuation served the best interests of the children. This concern followed closely on the heels of criticism over US motivation for the evacuation. Much of this controversy began when the unclear orphan status of some of the children came to light. The government of South Vietnam reluctantly allowed so many children to leave the country only under the condition that those who left would already be in the adoption process. Volunteers processing the children found that not all of them fit into this category of orphan. In the processing centers, some of the children told the volunteers that they were not orphans and had families living back in Vietnam. Naturally, Operation Babylift is all but forgotten today. It would be counterproductive to the onslaught of USG and ICC propaganda, not directed at the welfare of children, but rather as a crude “informational” device to further turn opinion against Russia’s SMO to denazify and disarm Ukraine and, in addition, prevent NATO from undermining Russian national security.

Finally, I cannot recall the ICC denouncing the post-coup regime in Kyiv for its savage eight-plus-year bombardment of the Donbas. Between April 2014 to April 2021, the USG-supported conflict in Donbas killed 152 and injured 146 children. The tragedy was underscored by a photo of “the deaths of 23-year old Kristina Zhuk and her daughter, 10-month old Kira, (note, the linked image is disturbing) during the bombardment of the public square in Horlivka,” writes Daria Platonova for Strife.

Of course, none of this, including the genocidal murder of adults in Donbas by Russian-hating neo-nazi misanthropes (with USG-provided artillery), is covered by the criminal war propaganda corporate media. Sputnik International ran this article detailing the murder of innocents. No doubt, if noticed at all in the “collective West,” it was ignored.

Finally, those posting to social media in support of the authoritarian Zelenskyy and his thugs are providing encouragement for genocidal monsters who torture, rape, murder, and burn alive not only mothers but their babies as well.

Thankfully, Putin has saved thousands of children, and adult refugees as well, from the sort of wanton and indiscriminate murder suffered by “The Madonna of Gorlovka,” Kristina Zhuk, and her infant child.

Simply put, if you support Ukraine, you support the murder of babies.

[ericfruits]

Latin America’s empty skies

Jun 4th 2020

LAST DECEMBER, in a different era, Avianca celebrated its centenary. Based in Colombia, it claims to be the world’s second-oldest airline, and the one that has flown continuously for longest. It is Latin America’s second-biggest carrier by revenues. Now, thanks to covid-19 and its associated lockdowns, Avianca’s planes are parked, its crews and ground staff furloughed. Last month it filed for relief from creditors in a New York court under Chapter 11 of the American bankruptcy code. A fortnight later, LATAM, a Chilean-Brazilian airline that is the region’s biggest, followed suit. Ecuador’s government has liquidated TAME, an ailing state-owned carrier.

This poses a policy dilemma. Governments in Europe and the United States have funnelled billions of dollars to their countries’ stricken airlines. Their counterparts in Latin America have less spare cash and different priorities. They must help tens of millions of citizens who face poverty and unemployment. Air travel in the region has historically been seen as a luxury. With their sometimes irksome pricing and unpunctuality, airlines are rarely loved and are a source of carbon emissions to boot. So far no Latin American government has offered them any financial help.

Flying matters in Latin America perhaps even more than in other regions, as Avianca’s long history testifies. That is partly because of its vast distances and geographical obstacles, characteristics which attracted the interest of pioneers of flight. Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, the author of “The Little Prince”, was a professional pilot between the two world wars. His jobs included carrying the mail between Paris, Buenos Aires and Chile. In a memoir he writes vividly of flying over the Andes, where “blustering gusts sweep through the narrow walls of…rocky corridors and force the pilot to a sort of hand-to-hand combat.”

As a result, the alternatives to flying are often laborious, even within countries. The journey from Bogotá, Colombia’s capital, to Cali, its third city, takes just an hour by air but almost ten hours by road, traversing two Andean ranges. Nowadays there are few passenger trains in the region, and no high-speed ones. The result is that “the airline industry is a public service carried out by private companies,” argues Eliseo Llamazares of the Santiago office of KPMG, a consultancy.

It increasingly serves a mass market. As a new lower-middle class grew, many of its members took to the skies for the first time. Passengers in Brazil began to reflect the country’s racial rainbow. This trend was helped by the arrival of low-cost airlines, which serve around half of Mexico’s domestic market and have also moved into South America. If the cost of international flights remains high, that is because more than half the ticket price is taxes.

Although the expansion in passenger numbers slowed with Latin America’s recent economic stagnation, the region remains one of the world’s growth markets for air travel. That prompted American carriers to move in, as part of a global restructuring of airline alliances. In October Delta spent $1.9bn on a stake in LATAM. United had previously taken control of Avianca after its former owner got into financial difficulties. Before the virus, United planned a broader alliance with Copa, of Panama, the region’s fifth-biggest airline, and Azul, a Brazilian carrier, in which it has a stake.

Consolidation may now accelerate. Entering Chapter 11 is a way for airlines to negotiate with creditors while still operating, without the risk that their planes will be seized, Mr Llamazares points out. He says that even after Latin America’s carriers get back into the sky, perhaps from next month, it may take until 2023 before they return to the passenger numbers and profitability they had in 2019. Even Copa, which is financially strong and does not plan to seek state aid, will operate at only about 40% of capacity in December, according to its boss, Pedro Heilbron.

There are two reasons why governments should worry about all this. First, if the airlines lack cash, that may itself slow economic recovery. And second, competition may be distorted, as subsidised foreign carriers gobble up more international traffic to and from the region. After an initial laissez-faire response, the governments of both Chile and Colombia are considering providing aid. If they do, it should come with strings, such as lowering emissions and trying to stimulate rather than restrict competition in the medium term. Latin America needs its airlines. It does not need to coddle them.

This article appeared in the The Americas section of the print edition under the headline "The empty skies"

https://ift.tt/3dzwL1J

[northcarolinaprelawland-blog]

Zion Williamson’s Legal War with Prime Sports Marketing LLC

By Patrick Duan, Duke University Class of 2023

May 19, 2020

In an age when the lucrative signatures of budding basketball stars equate to multi-million-dollar profits for agency companies, the stakes of signing contracts can fuel career-defining match ups off the basketball court—in the legal court. New Orleans Pelicans Forward Zion Williamson, the number one pick of the 2019 NBA Draft and former Duke phenom, has been embroiled in a series of increasingly complicated lawsuits since before his professional career even began. The rookie superstar, originally hailing from Spartanburg Day School in South Carolina, has found himself off the basketball court and in the courtroom—a war of back-and-forth lawsuits with Florida-based company Prime Sports Marketing LLC, a battle that now threatens not only Williamson’s wallet and sponsorships but also the permanent reputations of his family, renowned sports companies, and Duke University. 

Zion Fires the First Shot

The saga began in April 2019, when Williamson signed a five-year contract with Prime Sports Marketing LLC to represent him in endorsement deals, specifically with company president Gina Ford as his agent, just five days after he declared for the NBA draft.[i] However, on May 30, the Blue Devils prodigy inked his coveted name with another firm—Creative Artists Agency (CAA), subsequently informing Prime Sports that their contract was “hereby terminated and voided effective immediately.”[ii] In order to legally cut off his ties and invalidate his contract with the Florida agency, Williamson sued Gina Ford and Prime Sports in June in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.

Williamson’s legal team[i] alleged that the contract with Prime Sports violated the North Carolina Uniform Athlete Agents Act (NCUAAA) because it failed to contain a “conspicuous notice in boldface type in capital letters”informing Williamson that he would lose his college eligibility upon signing, and it also did not contain a disclaimer providing him 14 days to cancel, thus rendering the contract void.[ii]

The 19-year old’s suit also noted the lack of registration as an athlete agent in the state of North Carolina by either Prime Sports or its president, Gina Ford, which was another necessary component of a legitimate contract under the NCUAAA.[i]

North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 78C, Article 9, Uniform Athlete Agents Act (2018).[i]

Williamson’s attorney, Jeffrey S. Klein, justified the lawsuit by claiming that Prime Sports “blatantly violated the North Carolina statute specifically designed to protect student-athletes” and even issued “continued threats against Mr. Williamson.”[ii]

Ford Strikes Back

A week later, fully comprehending the astronomical magnitude of losing “arguably the most hyped prospect since Lebron James in 2003,” Gina Ford and Prime Sports countered by filing a $100 million lawsuit in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court against Williamson.[iii] The suit accused Williamson and CAA, his new agency, of “breach of contract, breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealings, fraud, tortious interference with a contract, civil conspiracy, unjust enforcement, misappropriation and violation of the Florida Uniform Trade Secrets Act.”[iv]

Ford argues that their contract prohibited either party from leaving the other in the absence of “cause,” which refers to “misconduct so egregious that it undermines the essence of the contract.”[v] Ford holds that no such “cause” occurred and, thus, Williamson’s breaching of the contract was unlawful.[vi]

In response to Williamson’s argument that their contract was voided due to Prime Sports’ violations of North Carolina regulations for student-athletes and lack of NCAA-certification, Ford and Prime Sports’ attorneys argue that Williamson evidently had no intention to return to play at the college level. Ford’s attorney, Stephen Drummond, claims that when Williamson suffered a right-knee sprain, after his sneaker famously tore apart in a nationally televised match, “Williamson realized that by continuing to play at the collegiate level, risking injury, could jeopardize his dream of becoming an NBA player.”[vii] Furthermore, Drummond cites Williamson’s verbal notifying of those around him that he “absolutely” would not be returning to Duke for the following season.[viii]Thus, Ford’s team argues that Williamson did not intend on preserving his NCAA eligibility when he signed the contract, which was also after he had already declared for the NBA Draft, and therefore was no longer under collegiate rules before he penned his name with Prime Sports.

Home Court Advantage- Forum Shopping

Both sides would prefer litigation in their respective home states, strategically, essentially forum shopping: It is in Williamson’s best interest to litigate the case in North Carolina for its NCUAAA laws which, as aforementioned, were arguably violated by Ford and Prime Sports; Ford would seek to litigate in Florida for its lack of the same explicit requirements on marketing representatives.[ix]Finally, both parties are aware that North Carolina jurors are more likely to have watched Williamson play in college and, thus, may be more inclined to favor him.[x]

Raising the Stakes

Recently, in May 2020, Ford has turned up the heat and escalated the situation, filing a request for admissions for Williamson to admit that he and his family received various illegal benefits from prominent parties to attend Duke University.

The file includes 16 requests, some of which ask Williamson to admit that his mother and step-father—Sharonda Sampson and Lee Anderson, respectively—“demanded and received gifts, money, and/or other benefits” from Duke University to induce Williamson to commit to playing for Duke.[i]Additionally, Ford is dragging giants into this expanding dispute as the former Blue Devil is being asked to admit that prior to attending Duke, his parents “demanded and received” benefits from Nike, who has an apparel contract with Duke, and Adidas, whose shoes are endorsed by Duke.[ii]

The 19-year old athlete would be under oath in admitting or denying these statements, which positions him to be charged with perjury if he knowingly lies.[i] It is clear that these statements were designed to make Williamson essentially confess to violating NCAA code in order to prove that he had already lost NCAA eligibility, of being protected under the student-athlete rules of the NCUAAA, when he signed with Prime Sports, which would entirely invalidate his initial suit. Although he is not obligated to admit to anything, it is probable that such a file was made with the primary intention of embarrassing Williamson and pressuring him to agree to a monetary settlement with Prime Sports before he must go on the record.[ii]

However, this pressure is not carried by the Williamson family, alone: As increasing suspicion looms over Nike and Adidas, suggesting potentially brand-tainting examinations of the companies, another prominent institution is also feeling the heat ignited by this development—Duke University. The private university, famous for its star-studded basketball program, is now suspected to have violated NCAA rules in possibly using unscrupulous tactics to land its world-class recruits. Although there has always existed skepticism around Duke’s recruitment results, Ford’s request for admissions has opened the possibility of the NCAA conducting a closer investigation of Williamson’s recruitment.[iii]If anything is indeed found, the glamour of Williamson’s young career and the prestige of Duke’s historic reputation could both be permanently tarnished. 

As this off-court battle enters the fourth quarter, we wait for the next shot. Beginning with a 19-year old athlete switching marketing agencies, this struggle has erupted into a complex legal war involving multiple parties, all of whom seem to have everything on the line:Gina Ford and Prime Sports’ suit that has now risen to $200 million in potential damages,

Zion Williamson and his family’s fallible futures, Nike and Adidas’s legal standings, and Duke University’s endangered name. Moreover, the decisive outcome of this clash of titans could set an era-defining precedent for contractual laws in collegiate sports, potentially altering the norms of student-athlete rights, endorsements, and recruitment.

________________________________________________________________

[1]McCann, Michael. “Analyzing the Latest Developments in Zion Lawsuit.” Sports Illustrated, May 10, 2020. https://www.si.com/college/2020/05/10/zion-williamson-lawsuit-developments.

[2]Bieler, Des. “Lawsuit Asks Zion Williamson to Admit Family Was Paid to Steer Him to Duke.” The Washington Post. WP Company, May 11, 2020. https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2020/05/11/lawsuit-asks-zion-williamson-admit-family-was-paid-steer-him-duke/#comments-wrapper.

[3]Williamson v. Prime Sports Marketing, LLC, and Gina Ford. United States District Court, Middle District of North Carolina (2019), pp. 1-14, 1. https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ncmd.82616/gov.uscourts.ncmd.82616.1.0_7_1.pdf.

[4]“Zion Sues Marketing Company, Alleging State Law Violation.” AP NEWS. Associated Press, June 14, 2019. https://apnews.com/4a6d554319f847ec83f37b210b63b995.

[5]North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 78C, Article 9, Uniform Athlete Agents Act (2018), pp. 1-8, 5. https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/ByArticle/Chapter_78C/Article_9.pdf.

[6] Ibid.

[7]Bieler, Desmond. “Zion Williamson Got Hit with a $100 Million Lawsuit Just before the Draft.” The Washington Post. WP Company, June 21, 2019. https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2019/06/21/zion-williamson-got-hit-with-million-lawsuit-just-before-draft/.

[8] North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 78C, Article 9, Uniform Athlete Agents Act (2018), pp. 1-8, 5. https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/ByArticle/Chapter_78C/Article_9.pdf.

[9]“Zion Sues Marketing Company, Alleging State Law Violation.” AP NEWS. Associated Press, June 14, 2019. https://apnews.com/4a6d554319f847ec83f37b210b63b995.

[10]Bieler, Desmond. “Zion Williamson Got Hit with a $100 Million Lawsuit Just before the Draft.” The Washington Post. WP Company, June 21, 2019. https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2019/06/21/zion-williamson-got-hit-with-million-lawsuit-just-before-draft/.

[11]McCann, Michael. “Analyzing the $100 Million Lawsuit against Zion Williamson.” Sports Illustrated, June 20, 2019. https://www.si.com/nba/2019/06/20/zion-williamson-caa-lawsuit-prime-sports-marketing-gina-ford-duke-nba-draft.

[12]McCann, Michael. “The Technicality That Could Derail Zion Williamson's Lawsuit.” Yahoo! Sports. Yahoo!, September 27, 2019. https://sports.yahoo.com/technicality-could-derail-zion-williamsons-144640236.html.

[13] Ibid.

[14]McCann, Michael. “Analyzing the $100 Million Lawsuit against Zion Williamson.” Sports Illustrated, June 20, 2019. https://www.si.com/nba/2019/06/20/zion-williamson-caa-lawsuit-prime-sports-marketing-gina-ford-duke-nba-draft.

[15] Ibid.

[16]McCann, Michael. “The Technicality That Could Derail Zion Williamson's Lawsuit.” Yahoo! Sports. Yahoo!, September 27, 2019. https://sports.yahoo.com/technicality-could-derail-zion-williamsons-144640236.html.

[17] Ibid.

[18]Prime Sports Marketing, LLC and Gina Ford v. Williamson. Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade County, Florida, Civil Division (2020), pp. 1-5, 1.

[19] Ibid, 2.

[21] Ibid, 3.

[21]Ibid, 2-4.

[22]McCann, Michael. “Analyzing the Latest Developments in Zion Lawsuit.” Sports Illustrated, May 10, 2020. https://www.si.com/college/2020/05/10/zion-williamson-lawsuit-developments.

[23] Ibid.

[24]Ibid.

[25]Sheehan, Stephen. “Zion Williamson Is on a $200 Million Hot Seat and Duke Coach Mike Krzyzewski Should Be Terrified - Sportscasting: Pure Sports.” Sportscasting, May 12, 2020. https://www.sportscasting.com/zion-williamson-is-on-a-200-million-hot-seat-and-duke-should-be-terrified/.

Photo Credit: Keenan Hairston