While many members of the press usually don’t publish a sexual abuse or rape victim’s identity, there is no law barring them from doing so. As long as a victim’s name or identifying characteristics — such as a previous car accident in the case of “Victim 1” — are truthful and obtained legally, the press is free to publish that information based on Florida Star v. B. J. F. and Cox Broadcasting v. Cohn. In the former, Justice Byron White wrote that such laws forbidding the press from publishing information from public records “would make it very difficult for the press to inform their readers about the public business and yet stay within the law.”

As a result of these rulings, it’s generally accepted by courts that the First Amendment protects the press against publishing the truthful identity of sexual crime victims, so long that they are discovered in good faith. But prior restraint barring the publication of a sexual crime victim’s name does not inherently hurt a journalist’s ability to relay facts of a crime and thus inform readers about public business. In fact, those Georgia and Florida laws discussed in Florida Star and Cox barring for the publication of the name of the victim of a sexual offense protect the public from future crimes.

Allowing for prior restraint, many argue, would surely create a hostile environment for the press reporting on sensitive government issues. In an effort to avoid this so called “chilling effect” of the press, the U.S. Supreme Court has given them almost free reign to publish responsible and truthful journalism. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes explained in his opinion of Schenck v. United States, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic…The question in every case is whether the words used…create a clear and present danger.” The final phrase has been widely interpreted, but I believe that there is a “clear and present danger” in allowing alleged rapists and sexual offenders to walk because victims are unwilling to testify and face public scrutiny through the press. Though Karen DeCrow, former president f the National Organization for Women, argued that printing victims’ identities “pull[s] off the veil of shame” of being raped or sexually abused, this shame could also be alleviated through awareness campaigns — without forcing victims to become part of a solution to a larger societal problem.

Passing by any newsstand, it’s obvious the public is interested in sex: Celebrities’ relationship status and one night stands are a staple of many magazines and newspapers, which no doubt cover such affairs to make money from an eager public. But readers don’t always enjoy innocent dalliances and happy endings, and many stories include violent sexual abuse and rape. While prior restraint is shameful in most cases — the public has every right to know the inner-workings of their government — knowing whom “Victim 1” is not necessary to foster public discussion. The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,” but this isn’t meant to protect journalists from disclosing an individual’s private information — most of all about their sexual lives, and especially when sex involves a crime.

 The above is an op-ed assignment for Journalism Ethics and First Amendment Law.

Photo from http://chrisriedy.com

The solution to climate change may be found in a feat of engineering mastered by Ray-Ban decades ago, apparently. A report released last week says that, along with other geoengineering technologies, giant “sun shades” could theoretically return global temperatures to the levels before the Industrial Revolution in a matter of years…but at an unknown – possible disastrous – price.

The report, discussed on Friday at the U.N. climate conference in Urban. South Africa, says reflecting sunlight back to space before it reaches earth could solve the global warming crisis and end all this renewable energy nonsense once and for all, according to the Associated Press.

Dubbed “Solar Radiation Management” or SRM, this technology would consist of various methods of reflection, such as brightening clouds with seawater, painting roofs white, and spraying aerosols in the stratosphere.

“SRM technologies would take effect relatively quickly and their cost could be comparatively low, and they could reduce some of the most significant effects of climate change,” reads the study, led by Britain’s Royal Society, the Environmental Defense Fund and TWAS, the Italy-based academy of sciences for the developing world. The final report is the result of three days of talks last spring—the climax a yearlong discussion of geoengineering’s potential effects among scientists, philosophers and legal scholars spanning 22 countries, according to the AP.

While the study appears to be good news, don’t buy that SVU just yet.The report also confirms what we already suspected: the potential side effects of geoengineering could be really, really bad.

“Solar radiation management technologies are high-risk and extremely dangerous and they should be treated under international law like nuclear weapons – except, unlike nuclear weapons, we have an opportunity to ban their testing and their proliferation before the technology is fully developed, rather than trying to prevent their proliferation after the fact,” environmentalist Silvia Ribeiro, of the Canada-based ETC-Group, said to the AP.

The U.N. seems to agree, with over 190 countries consenting to a geoengineering ban in order to protect the planet’s biodiversity.

But the new report acknowledges the possibility that such tactics might be necessary, in light of the “progress” made since talks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions began some 20 years ago.

“The slow progress of international climate negotiations has led to increased concerns that sufficient cuts in greenhouse gas emissions may not be achieved in time to avoid unacceptable levels of climate change,” the report said.

But that doesn’t mean we should give up reducing carbon dioxide emissions, says John Shepherd, a British oceanographer from the University of Southampton and a lead author of the report.

“This would buy time for people to make the transition to a low-carbon economy,” he said to the AP.

Shepherd might seem a little optimistic, but so are we.

The above is an assignment for an environmental journalism class where I was asked to write a blog post for an existing green blog. I chose TreeHugger, so that’s why I link back to the blog as “we”. I don’t actually think I am a writer for them, but maybe someday. 

My family's beautiful--but unfortunately fake--Christmas tree.

In a week or so, my family will begin the grueling, weekend-long process of putting up our Christmas tree. My dad will bring up the tree from the basement, piece by piece, before assembling it like Lincoln Logs in our living room. Then my mom will stand, squat and sit at its base for hours, trying to bend the wire branches into the perfect shape. When she’s done, the branches, sticking haphazardly in every direction, will resemble the disorder in a real conifer. But in spite of this seemingly natural, evergreen façade, our tree, like millions of others manufactured and sold each year, is anything but “green,” in the environmental sense.

In addition to being non-recyclable, non-biodegradable, and ultimately landfill-bound, most of this country’s fake Christmas trees are imported from distant parts of the globe, generating climate-changing emissions in transit. Despite saving families hundreds of dollars and preserving millions of real trees, fake trees promote environmental unsustainability and should be replaced with real firs or living, potted Christmas trees.

Though real trees are chopped down, they’re still environmentally sustainable. Throughout its lifetime, a single farmed tree absorbs more than a ton of CO2 and each acre of farmed trees produces enough oxygen for 18 people for one day, according to the National Christmas Tree Association. Because growers must ensure a continuing supply of Christmas trees every year, farmers use sustainable farming techniques and plant one to three seedlings for each harvested tree.

The production of artificial trees relies heavily on nonrenewable petroleum. Most of today’s artificial trees are made with metal and polyvinyl chloride, a petroleum-derived plastic, according to Earth911.com, an environmental services company. The U.S. Commerce Department and the tree association report that 80 percent of those oil-based fake trees are shipped worldwide from China on petroleum-powered jets. Though real Christmas trees might be shipped across the country in gas-guzzling trucks, when fake trees are imported from China on planes, the international trip contributes much more to global warming. Because planes cruise in the upper atmosphere, the warming effect of plane emissions is 1.9 times that of carbon dioxide, according to an estimate by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change.

But even if you don’t subscribe to the impending crisis of global warming, real Christmas trees still come on top. The tree association reports there are about 15,000 Christmas tree-growing farms in the U.S., employing over 100,000 people in the industry full or part-time. It might be cheaper to reuse an artificial tree each year, but the economy doesn’t benefit from importing fake Christmas trees from China.

Another picture of our Christmas tree.

While it’s clear they aren’t saving American jobs, artificial tree owners will argue that they’re saving trees. About 33 million real Christmas trees are sold in North America every year, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Each is cut down, shipped away, and decorated for a few weeks before being tossed out in the cold. In January, when the trees are left on the street for garbage collection, our street turns into a Christmas graveyard. That’s where fake Christmas trees come in: families believe they can “save” trees by reusing the same artificial one every year.

But you don’t have to have a fake tree to reuse. About 93 percent of real trees sold in America are recycled through more than 4,000 available recycling programs, according to the tree association. Some forms of “treecycling” include recycling the trees into mulch or chips for use in playgrounds, trails and walkways. They can also be used for erosion prevention: In Louisiana, Christmas trees are submerged underground and provide a wave break between marshes and hurricanes. And while the production of fake trees contributes to global warming, real trees are farmed, so cutting them down doesn’t change ecosystems long-term.

As other Christmas decorations become increasingly unsustainable (blow-up snowmen powered by portable generators?), it’s important to remember that replacing plastic trees with their natural counterparts will benefit the environment. To ensure future holidays aren’t tainted by the devastating affects of global warming, families should not buy artificial trees this Christmas.

My family’s artificial tree, decked with an eclectic assortment of ornaments, is one of my earliest and most beloved Christmas memories. In a few years, when our fake tree eventually breaks (it’s only a matter of time), I hope that my family is willing to let our traditions, like nature, evolve.

The finished product: Reese's Pieces on the left, M&M's on the right.

I’m not going to pretend I have any clue how to properly food blog. (At least not in the way Annie from Annie’sEats can.) But here goes nothing.

It’s really crappy outside (snow? in October?), so, while Mike was doing homework, I decided to blow off some steam and do a little baking. I’ve been baking a lot this semester, mostly because it’s relaxing; Something about mixing together a specific measurement of ingredients soothes my type A personality. My specialty is cookies (I’ve become particularly good at Snickerdoodles) and I use bringing the cookies to my internship at the Observer as an excuse to bake. (Because baking for myself would cause me to explode.)

I wanted to bake something fall-themed for Halloween, so I decided to replace the chocolate chips in the Nestlé Tollhouse chocolate chip cookie recipe with fall-themed M&M’s and Reese’s Pieces.

History break: chocolate chip cookies were invented by a woman who owned the Toll House Inn. She was making chocolate cookies and ran out of regular baker’s chocolate, so she threw in pieces of Nestlé semi-sweet chocolate thinking it would melt in the oven. It didn’t and everyone’s favorite cookie was born.

Back to baking. Here’s the adapted recipe I used, modified from the recipe that’s on the back of Nestlé Toll House chocolate chip packets.

Ingredients

• 1 teaspoon baking soda
• 1 teaspoon salt
• 1 cup (2 sticks) butter, softened
• 3/4 cup granulated sugar
• 3/4 cup packed brown sugar
• 1 teaspoon vanilla extract
• 2 large eggs
• About 2 cups M&M’s (fall themed if you’re a dork like me) or Reese’s Pieces

Directions

• PREHEAT oven to 375° F.
• COMBINE flour, baking soda and salt in small bowl. Beat butter, granulated sugar, brown sugar and vanilla extract in large mixer bowl until creamy. Add eggs, one at a time, beating well after each addition. Gradually beat in flour mixture. Stir in M&M’s or Reese’s Pieces. Drop by rounded tablespoon onto ungreased baking sheets.
• BAKE for 8 to 11 minutes or until golden brown. When you use an electric stove, I’ve found it usually takes less time to bake through. Cool on baking sheets for 2 minutes; remove to wire racks to cool completely.

Stretching across Vernon Boulevard in Hunters Point, shiny pink and orange pennant strings waved in front of the old-time spire of St. Mary’s Roman Catholic Church just two days after the store opened. The strings, along with three white Dunkin’ Donuts/Baskin-Robbins flags drilled into the sidewalk, signaled a changing neighborhood for many Hunters Point, Long Island City, residents.

“I liked all the flavor of all the non-franchise related stores,” said Naz Khan, a four-year Long Island City resident. “It’s right across the street from this beautiful church. It cheapens the neighborhood.”

Like Ms. Khan, Jason Carpenter said he felt the neighborhood’s appeal is in its local stores.

“I love the mom and pop feel of Long Island City and that blue-collar workers are rubbing elbows with local artists,” said Mr. Carpenter, three-and-a-half year resident.

“When you see a Dunkin’ Donuts come in, it doesn’t fit in with that perception.”

Though Mr. Carpenter said he’d go to the store if he wanted a bacon, egg and cheese sandwich, he said he’d also make an effort to support local businesses.

Two-month resident Pat Haggerty also expressed concern over the new store threatening neighborhood businesses.

“It’s kind of weird because, in a way, you’re happy that there’s an extra cup of coffee if you want,” Mr. Haggerty said. “But then you realize the individual spots like Sweetleaf are the ones hurting.”

Despite Mr. Haggerty’s concern, an employee of Sweetleaf, a coffee and espresso bar a block away from Dunkin’ Donuts/Baskin-Robbins, shrugged off the new competition.

Nikkita Flavius-Gottschalk, a month-long employee, said she doesn’t think the franchise will hurt the store’s business.

“Consumers will decide for themselves,” said Ms. Flavius-Gottschalk. “It’s all about an atmosphere.”

While Mr. Haggerty will continue getting his coffee fix at Sweetleaf, 10-year resident Nancy Bicchetti is pleased with the neighborhood gaining a franchise.

“We don’t have anything here, anything at all, so it’s good,” she said, noting the lack of corporate retailers.

Michelle King, a Dunkin’ Brands spokeswoman, said in an email that Long Island City residents, like Ms. Bicchetti it seems, will appreciate the franchise.

“Long Island City has a wide variety of coffee retailers, but people who live and work in the area recognize Dunkin’ Donuts as offering a great cup of coffee served in a friendly environment at a great value,” Ms. King said.

Even though people may enjoy Dunkin’ Donuts, Mr. Carpenter said, the store is only recently in the area to serve certain residents.

“They’re here to serve a particular kind of crowd and that’s the gentrified types,” he said.

For Mr. Carpenter, the new franchise is a sure sign the of neighborhood’s gentrification. After several luxury residential buildings were developed along the East River in Hunters Point, more commuters now live in the area, he said.

“Dunkin’ Donuts isn’t like a five-star restaurant,” Mr. Carpenter said. “But it’s for those commuters who want to grab a cup of Joe before going into the city. And I think that’s who they’re catering to.”

—

I wrote this piece for a journalism class called “The Beat: New York Neighborhoods.” I was assigned to cover Long Island City, Queens, and this is the first in a series of stories I’ll write about the neighborhood. If you are a resident of LIC with story suggestions or tips for stories for the class, feel free to email me at anna [dot] sanders [at] nyu [dot] edu.

Besides incorrectly noting that Zagat’s reviews are “trusted” (Zagat rated KFC as having the #1 best “chicken,” despite this), Marissa Mayer, Google’s VP for Local, Maps and Location Services, explained the take-over:

…I’m incredibly excited to collaborate with Zagat to bring the power of Google search and Google Maps to their products and users, and to bring their innovation, trusted reputation and wealth of experience to our users.

Zagat’s poor rating of KFC’s “chicken” isn’t the most disturbing thing about this news. At the end of the post, Mayer tagged the announcement ”acquisition”. Any company whose blog has 20 posts tagged “acquisition” is up to something. Like, take-over-the-world-and-everything-humans-use up to something.

I don’t consider myself an expert on monopolies. Google’s many applications are by no means dominating the market. Google search is not the only search engine, Gmail is definitely not the only email service and it’s clear Google+ has a long way to go before it surpasses Facebook. But, when I look closely at Google’s products, I can’t help but wonder why a company has stakes in so many fields. From Picnik to Android’s Google cell phones, it’s like the company wants something to do with every little part of our lives.

I’m no fan of Facebook’s privacy settings, but at least they’re not trying to outshine every other company in every market. Google wants to make its map feature compete with Yelp by acquiring Zagat. Picnik misspells itself just like the other photo sharing website, Flickr. And using Blogger is easier with a Gmail account.

While it seems like Google is trying to monopolize our lives instead of a single market, I can understand why this sort of thing is legal. By failing to focus on one feature, Google can’t compete with Facebook or the iPhone, and there’s no need to bust up the monopoly.

Instead of showing any serious competition to companies focused on one specific feature, Google seems to be running around with its head cut off, much like those poor “chickens” do at a KFC  slaughterhouse.

We have made clear our views and concerns about illegally disclosed classified information and the continuing risk to individuals and national security that such releases cause…Wikileaks has, however, ignored our requests not to release or disseminate any U.S. documents it may possess and has continued its well-established pattern of irresponsible, reckless, and frankly dangerous actions…We are not cooperating with them.

As a journalist, I’d have to agree with the State Department on this one. While I’m a big supporter of free information, simply dumping that information online with no accountability is reckless. Unlike WikiLeaks, journalists and news organizations put information in context and hold themselves responsible for the outcome. Instead of publishing an interview with the President, a journalist uses that interview to form a story.

In the case of sensitive diplomatic documents, a journalist would not publish the complete document with no other information. And they would certainly omit names of innocent people who could get hurt if their involvement with diplomats got out. And what about gossipy documents where Hillary Clinton says this or that to another State Department? That kind of news can start a war. If a journalist got hold of that information, they wouldn’t thrust it on the world. They’d think about the consequences. They’d check their facts. Then–maybe, depending on weather cause the media enjoys storm-coverage–they’d publish some of the document.

WikiLeaks, however, is an anti-secrecy group. Which is why it’s amusing one of their passwords (or, as I mention below, their only password?) was leaked.

Early this morning, WikiLeaks announced that the security of its secret U.S. diplomatic cables had been breached after a Guardian journalist violated an agreement between the anti-secrecy group and the newspaper’s editor-in-chief Alan Rusbridger. WikiLeaks alleges the journalist “disclosed top-secret decryption passwords to the entire, unredacted, WikiLeaks Cablegate archive.”

WikiLeaks explains, “A Guardian journalist has negligently disclosed top-secret WikiLeaks’ decryption passwords to hundreds of thousands of unredacted unpublished US diplomatic cables.”

However, Gawker explains it a bit differently with their expertly titled article, “Wikileaks Freaks Out at Newspaper Over Its Own Dumbassery.” According to Gawker:

Indeed, the statement appears to confirm several rumors that had been floating around…that a password published in full in WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy, a book about The Guardian‘s work with the site and its founder, was a “decryption password” for the complete, unredacted archive of U.S. diplomatic cables, which the site had released in part in late 2010 in concert with several newspapers.

WikiLeaks fails to mention the leaked password works with “a BitTorrent file of the archive that has been floating around the internet for months—possibly since last year, well before the publication of the book,” according to Gawker. The Guardian journalists covering the leak said they were given archive access  ”through a secure server online for a period of hours,” as a “basic security precaution” and WikiLeaks told them the password was “temporary” and “would expire and be deleted in a matter of hours.” Gawker adds, “The paper says it had no idea about the BitTorrent file.”

Whoever is to blame, after announcing that their password was leaked, the WikiLeaks twitter account asked its followers if they thought the group should release all its documents immediately, despite its plan to release U.S. diplomatic cables ”according to a carefully laid out plan to stimulate profound changes.” They determined, “Given that the full database file is downloadable from hundreds of sites there is only one internally rational action.”

This story is a bit silly. Not because it isn’t news, but the irony is almost too perfect: Any anti-secrecy group should know that nothing stays secret for long, including passwords. Especially if those passwords aren’t changed often.

Here's funny political cartoon showing liberals and the GOP bicker about the downgrade, as well as the debt ceiling.

I don’t consider myself an artist–with drawing, anyway–but my father had an idea for a political cartoon that I thought I’d try to depict. Hopefully my old man won’t be disappointed.

Basically, the United State Justice Department is investigating whether or not Standard & Poor’s improperly rated mortgage securities before the financial crisis, according to The New York Times. Though the inquiry began before the company downgraded the United States’ AAA credit rating to AA+, but “it is likely to add fuel to the political firestorm that has surrounded that action,” according to the Times. Administration officials, lawmakers and comedians  have since questioned the agency’s downgrade, as well as  its “secretive process, its credibility and the competence of its analysts, claiming to have found an error in its debt calculations.”

So my dad, born and raised in sweet home Chicago, found it funny the media are only beginning to  seriously cover the investigation. In Chicago, he explained, when companies and individuals, eh, annoy the city, they usually get a visit from a city agency, like the Department of Buildings, to make sure everything complies with city laws and codes. My dad thinks the Justice Department’s S&P inquiry has been handled in a Chicago-esque manner.

Here’s my political cartoon attempting to depict my dad’s thoughtful comparison. Enjoy!

Related articles

• DoJ now probing S&P over mortgage-bond ratings (hotair.com)
• Justice Dept. finally investigating S&P mortgage ratings (americablog.com)

In a letter released today, Clive Goodman alleges that phone hacking was "widely discussed" by editors and reporters at News of the World. (via The Telegraph)

A letter written by News of the World’s former royal correspondent, Clive Goodman, reveals editors and top reporters at the ruined tabloid discussed phone hacking. As a result of the letter, released today, News of the World’s former editor, Andy Coulson, Rupert and James Murdoch “all face embarrassing new allegations of dishonesty and cover-up,” according to the Guardian.

The letter was published  by the Commons culture, media and sport select committee and may result in the Murdoch being recalled to appear in parliament. Goodman’s letter, written after he served  a four-month sentence for phone hacking in March 2007, claims phone hacking was “widely discussed” at editorial meetings until Coulson banned further references to it. Coulson, according to Goodman, also offered to let Goodman keep his job amid the royal phone hacking scandal if he didn’t implicate the paper in court. Goodman also claims his hacking of the royal household occurred with ”the full knowledge and support” of senior journalists.

After Goodman's letter was released, the Murdochs may face further questions from parliament. (via International Business Times)

Goodman wrote the letter to News International’s director of human resources, Daniel Cloke, appealing his termination after he admitting intercepted the voicemail of three royals. Les Hinton, former chairman, was had a copy of the letter but failed to pass it to police–though Hinton “led a cast of senior Murdoch personnel in telling parliament that they believed Coulson knew nothing about the interception of the voicemail of public figures and that Goodman was the only journalist involved,” according to the Guardian. Whoops.

The Guardian calls the letter “explosive.” The New York Daily News says it’s “shocking.” On its front page, Huffington Post dubs it a “smoking gun” alleging a “huge” cover-up. And The New York Times thinks it’s “embarrassing new evidence.”

But, really, is anyone surprised? Many of the journalists who wrote the articles above know that editors want them to get the scoop–and fast–even if that means talking to 100s of sources. While it’s true the phone hacking scandal may make it more difficult for sources to trust journalists, Goodman’s letter suggests editors might need to take it easy for journalism’s sake, too. Goodman explains:

This practice was widely discussed in the daily editorial conference, until explicit reference to it was banned by the editor.

Even after he was fired for phone hacking, Goodman explains his editor would take him back:

Tom Crone [the paper's lawyer] and the editor promised on many occasions that I could come back to a job at the newspaper if I did not implicate the paper or any of its staff in my mitigation plea. I did not, and I expect the paper to honour its promise to me.

Goodman lost his appeal, but the letter proves editors not only knew about Goodman’s actions, but endorsed them and hid this endorsement. Maybe I’m cynical. Maybe I’ve dealt with too many editors with a “get-it-done” attitude, but I understand why reporters at News of the World might turn to hacking–and why editors would turn a blind-eye. On a media platform such as the web–where news and gossip spread like wildfire–unless you have something no one else has, readers don’t really care. Desperate to keep their jobs as colleagues are laid off amid a global journalism crisis, editors and reporters may turn to unsavory methods. Hacking and paying sources are among the worst. But there was probably a time when calling the same source several times a day to get a quote, any quote, was considered harassment. Editors expect you to do that today.

For the same reason FoxNews and Newsweek are considered biased, News of the World used phone hacking (allegedly) to get more readers. I don’t think I’d ever stoop so low as to commit a crime, but maybe hacking will be journalistically and legally acceptable in the future. Hey, it could happen: content aggregating used to be considered stealing, now it’s the best way to get page views.