Category: News Feeds

We’ve focused a lot on Biglaw’s response to the George Floyd killing. As an institution that skews “little-c” conservative, reflecting the corporate community it serves while tempered by the risk-averse instincts of attorneys, the Biglaw response paints a picture of how this may really be an inflection point in the country.

Law schools are issuing statements as well, though by and large we expect academia to be more inclined to express support for social reform. But that slack we cut them isn’t entirely earned. Which is why the Michigan Law response from Dean Mark D. West struck a chord. Not so much for what it said, but for how it strained to, functionally, apologize for having to say anything about racial injustice at all.

Judging from the four corners of the statement, Dean West says a lot of the right things. He discusses the “disparity in policing and criminal justice,” the “responsibility of all in our community to confront these disparities,” and outlining a reconstituted Educational Environment Committee and some recent hires. Could there be more? Certainly. Law firm statements have outlined more specific forward-looking diversity initiatives, sponsored pro bono efforts, and offered mental health resources for folks dealing with present traumatic stress. In fact, the Michigan BLSA, burdened with doing the work that no one else at Michigan has done for years, proposed a number of concrete reforms.

Merely joining Mitt Friggin’ Romney in being able to say “Black Lives Matter,” something the statement failed to do, would be a big step. Just being better than nothing doesn’t make it enough.

But let’s focus on one paragraph from the statement that generated a lot of ire that the dean may not have foreseen:

The Law School has a long-standing policy against making statements regarding events that happen outside the Quad. That’s especially true when students aren’t on campus in the summer, and even more so when the President of the University has issued a statement. Broad statements can seem superficial and irrelevant to your concerns, and if frequent, the efficacy of the messages decreases over time. So in this case, in accordance with our policy, I had no plan to issue a statement. And that’s what I did for a week.

This got a lot of students and faculty wondering… why? Why does a law school institutionally eschew commenting on the broader society it supposedly serves? Why does the law school think police brutality and racism are exclusively “outside the Quad” issues? Why would “Black Lives Matter” qualify as a superficial statement? The #MLawLoud hashtag on Twitter gathers a lot of the concern over this statement but also offers a place for students to “share their experiences, amplify each other’s voices, and organize” generally.

West probably wanted to convey how seriously he took the issue that it would prompt breaching this long-standing policy, but on the page it comes across as if the school is apologizing for the fact that it has to interrupt everyone’s day to dare to say that racism is bad. And that mindset is indicative of a more deeply rooted problem that inflicts more institutions than just Michigan Law.

A student posted an exchange she had with Dean West about this concern, and his response highlights this blindspot:

The slippery slope rides again!

No, you don’t have to issue statements over every injustice, you just have to not apologize for saying something about an injustice that’s sparked the most widespread societal response in years. This isn’t three-dimensional chess here. And, yeah, saying something about white supremacy shouldn’t have required a mass uprising, but now that it’s here the least one can do is admit that it’s genuinely worthy of comment.

Also, maybe don’t even allude to the possibility that it could be in the same ballpark as someone asking about “black-on-white murders.”

I mean… seriously?

---

Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

Stephanie Rapkin, a lawyer from Shorewood, Wisconsin, was arrested over the weekend. Twice.

According to authorities, Rapkin spit in the face of a teenaged protester on Saturday, slapped and pushed a protester on Sunday, and kneed a police officer in the groin (also on Sunday).

As reported by Patch, Rapkin was arrested on suspicion of battery and disorderly conduct for the spitting incident on Saturday. Due to the county’s COVID-19 policies, she was not taken to jail. This all occurred after Rapkin used her car to block peaceful protesters. According to reports, she then got out of her car to confront the crowd. As shown in video footage of the incident, the crowd is imploring Rapkin to get back into her car to let the demonstration continue when she spits in the face of high-school student Eric Lucas.

Lucas spoke out about the incident on Monday, saying he felt “physically and mentally shaken” by the incident.

Speaking before reporters in a Monday morning news conference also hosted by school officials, Lucas said “I feel disappointed in feeling unloved by individuals who I have done no harm to,” he said. “Our family does not hate, but does request that justice be prompt and appropriate.”

Besides being a universal symbol of disrespect, spitting into someone’s face takes on a more violent undertone in the time of COVID.

After the shocking behavior on Saturday — directed at a teenager, no less — peaceful protesters gathered in front of Rapkin’s home (photos of that arrest available here). Police say Rapkin began to argue with a protester and slapped and shoved him. When police showed up to arrest Rapkin for the second time that weekend, they say she kneed an officer in the groin. Police are recommending charges of battery, disorderly conduct, resisting an officer, and battery to a law enforcement officer.

Just when you think that, during this time of unrest, we’ve already seen worst of what attorneys think is acceptable, 2020’s there with the “not so fast.”

Rapkin’s behavior has been condemned by local officials:

“The Village Board wants to let the community know we denounce this behavior. We are proud of all the Shorewood youth that stood up to speak about their experiences at the march on Saturday,” the board wrote. “The Village Board recognizes the diversity of our community is our strength and is joining those around the nation to bring an end to violence and injustice towards people of color.”

And an official complaint has been filed with the Wisconsin State Office of Lawyer Regulation. Attorney Michael S. Maistelman alleges Rapkin’s behavior violated the professional code of conduct as well as the Wisconsin Attorney’s Oath which says attorneys must “abstain from all offensive personality and advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness unless required by the justice of the cause with which [they are] charged.”

---

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).

This s–t won’t ever stop unless we f–kin’ take it all down. And that’s why the anger is being expressed tonight in this way.

This has got to stop. And the only way they hear, the only way they hear us is through violence, through the means that they use.

— Urooj Rahman, one of the lawyers accused in a Molotov cocktail attack in New York, in a videotaped interview with Loudlabs given less than an hour before the alleged firebombing took place. Rahman was supposed to be released on $250,000 bond, but was sent back to jail following a decision by the Second Circuit.

---

Staci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

WASHINGTON: Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy will have a conference call with House Armed Services Committee members this afternoon to answer questions about the now-dwindling deployment of 5,200 National Guard members to Washington last week, and why Guard helicopters buzzed protesters.

McCarthy’s call comes as House lawmakers are fuming over the refusal of Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley to appear before them this week.

HASC chairman Rep. Adam Smith and 30 Democratic HASC members issued a statement calling Esper and Milley’s absence “unacceptable,” adding, “we insist that they appear before our committee. Our military leaders are sworn to be accountable to the people of this country, and Congress is constitutionally responsible for oversight. They must appear and testify on these crucial matters in order to meet that responsibility.”

Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman said in an email that Esper and Milley “have not ‘refused’ to testify before the HASC as some are reporting. The DOD legislative affairs team remains in discussion with the HASC on this request.”

However, McCarthy, Army Chief of Staff Gen. McConville, and DC National Guard Commanding General Maj. Gen. Walker are talking to the committee today.

Esper and Milley have come under fire for their handling of the situation in Washington, including stationing 1,600 active duty troops just outside of the capital, and accompanying President Trump on his June 1 march to St. John’s Church one block from the White House after Lafayette Square was violently cleared of protesters on orders of administration officials.

“We came right up to the edge of bringing active troops here, and we didn’t,” McCarthy told reporters yesterday, a call in which he took responsibility for the deployments of Guard members in the city. 

McCarthy said he and Walker “drove all over the city, talking to soldiers and telling them to keep your cool, keep your cool and continue to keep the temperature down. People are angry and frustrated, as they should be, and we are working really hard with that.”

A major point of concern are the actions of the U.S. Park Police and supporting forces to clear the park before the president’s now-infamous walk. 

The melee, which captured headlines around the world for the swift and violent action by police to push protesters back remains shrouded in mystery. A week later, it remains unclear who gave the actual order to move, and when. Attorney General William Barr has spent several days denying responsibility, despite early reports that he told the police to clear the area. Pentagon and Army leaders have said they had no idea the push was coming.

Walker told reporters Sunday that frozen water bottles and eggs has been thrown at police by protesters on the day before the clearing operation. Five soldiers were hit in the head and one suffered a concussion. But Guard members did not “use force of any kind on protesters. As far as National Guardsmen pushing back, that did not happen. They were never aggressive, never offensive. They took a strictly defensive posture.”

Despite that restraint, Walker and McCarthy appeared to be unaware of any order for the police to charge the protestors, in which video has emerged of officers beating journalists and shooting tear gas into the crowd. McCarthy said he “did not know what triggered the Park Police to make the clearing” and that an ongoing investigation should clear up some of the confusion. The Australian ambassador to Washington, Australia’s ambassador to the United States publicly complained about the attack on Channel 7 TV reporters at the park. The network’s news director Craig McPherson called the police’s action “nothing short of wanton thuggery.”

“I do not know why they advanced,” Walker said of the Park Police. “We were directed to maintain the line.”

That confusion will surely be a prime avenue for lawmakers to explore, as well as the Lakota and Black Hawk helicopters caught on video hovering low over protesters, generating such powerful downdrafts that branches snapped off trees. 

McCarthy took responsibility for the use of helicopters and said an investigation has been opened into the tactic, which has been derided as dangerous in such a dense urban environment filled with mostly peaceful protesters. Walker added that he did not issue any orders to employ helicopters to disperse crowds, but would not offer any specifics on what happened, only adding that an investigation should be wrapped up and released later this week. The head of the DC National Guard has opened an investigation into the matter.

The Guard deployment, which peaked last week at 5,200 troops, is quickly winding down. Troops from Maryland, New Jersey and Mississippi have already left Washington, while Guardsmen from Florida, Utah, and Indiana, are heading home today. The remaining troops from Missouri, South Carolina, Ohio, Idaho, and Tennessee will likely be gone by Tuesday.

While the active duty forces are gone, and the guard is on its way out, the police presence in downtown Washington remains substantial. The White House resembles a fortified bunker behind rings of eight-foot high reinforced fencing and security from the bottom of the Ellipse to the north side of Lafayette Park. In a remarkable bit of doublespeak, the Secret Service release announcing the enormous expanse of fencing says: “These closures are in an effort to maintain the necessary security measures surrounding the White House complex, while also allowing for peaceful demonstration.”

Lawmakers get the chance to talk to Army and Guard leadership today, but with Milley and Esper holding out, and markups on the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act getting underway this week, it could be a long summer on Capitol Hill for the Pentagon. 

Still, McCarthy said he’s probably best-suited to explain to the Congress what happened in Washington, and why. “I’ve been intimately involved in the process and can explain a lot of the decisions,” he said. “General Walker, as the commander, was pretty well-suited to explain our actions” that took place between May 29 and today.

“What do you call a lawyer that you like and can’t live without?” the president asked the board. After a prolonged pause, he said, “You call that person the general counsel.”

And that is how I got my first in-house role, my first general counsel role, at a 100-year-old organization that had never had an in-house lawyer, let alone a general counsel.

Firsts are filled with dreams and hopes. They are difficult and complicated for everyone involved. But they are also full of opportunities.

‎Elizabeth Benegas, General Counsel of NetDocuments, and I dive into the complexities and richness of being the first in-house lawyer.

This led to a great discussion! What challenges might the first in-house or general counsel face? When is the right time to hire your first in-house or general counsel? How do you think about it? And much, much more.

It turns out that being the first GC is unique and rewarding.

“Being the first in-house attorney/GC allows for a unique opportunity to take a deep dive into learning the business and establishing strong partnerships with the other leaders.” said Jill Passalacqua, the vice president, general counsel, and corporate secretary of Avi Networks. She explained, “Setting the tone for the legal function and being seen as someone who drives business, not just managing risk. Agreed, it’s never too early to bring in your legal partner!”

Justin Cousino, the general counsel of Grammer AG, said, “This has been my life for my last three GC roles! It is great to go into a company that has never had in-house counsel and help improve their operations and bring a ton of ROI!” He explained, “Easiest is clearly outside counsel spend. Second is vendor/customer management spend (i.e., negotiating proper contracts, settling issues prior to litigation or emphasizing proper stance). Third, and most importantly, labor relations. With proper training and refreshers, in-house legal can amplify employee retention resulting in decreased turnover (cost savings) and avoid or potentially minimize EEO claims, even those frivolous ones from aggrieved terminations.”

Lisa Gilley, the general counsel at Higher Logic, further explained, “I’ve been a “company’s first GC” three times in my career. The GC role always requires a unique combination of legal, business, and interpersonal skills — but a “first” GC also needs to demonstrate value, understand business needs, drive deal-making, and eliminate barriers to growth. When this proactive legal approach aligns with business goals, the GC becomes a full partner in the growth and future of the company. Rewarding work!”

So, the challenges … there are many!

Lisa Lang, the general counsel of Kentucky State University, said, “Understanding the role of general counsel and how that general counsel is different from outside counsel.” Talar Herculian Coursey, the general counsel at Vista Ford, agreed.

So… when to hire? The consensus: it is never too soon.

According to Lang, “In a perfect world, all companies would have one in this litigious world. If you decide to move forward without one you should reconsider when you find yourself calling outside counsel for more than just your litigation needs or, heaven forbid, or the threat of litigation increases.”

Likewise, Caroline McCaffery, former serial general counsel turned CEO and founder of ClearOPS, Inc., said, “I joined as GC twice to startups that were sub-20 employees. I think it’s never too early!”

Being the first general counsel of a legacy organization was one of the most rewarding experiences of my life. I learned more than I ever thought I could from one role, and I was challenged to think outside the box that my legal training built. But even more important than my growth was that of the organization I worked for. Just having a general counsel, or an in-house legal staff of any kind, forced them to think of themselves, their business, and their challenges in a new light. No one exists outside the law. It affects every decision we make.

---

Olga V. Mack is the CEO of Parley Pro, a next-generation contract management company that has pioneered online negotiation technology. Olga embraces legal innovation and had dedicated her career to improving and shaping the future of law. She is convinced that the legal profession will emerge even stronger, more resilient, and more inclusive than before by embracing technology. Olga is also an award-winning general counsel, operations professional, startup advisor, public speaker, adjunct professor, and entrepreneur. She founded the Women Serve on Boards movement that advocates for women to participate on corporate boards of Fortune 500 companies. She authored Get on Board: Earning Your Ticket to a Corporate Board Seat and Fundamentals of Smart Contract Security. You can follow Olga on Twitter @olgavmack.

Missouri is monitoring the ongoing COVID-19 outbreak and is very concerned about the risk of exposure. Not the exposure of test-takers, but the more important exposure of the bar examiners to liability after they pack applicants into a crowded hall for a July exam.

That’s why Missouri is joining Mississippi and North Carolina in seeking some sort of weasely cover for themselves in the form adding a liability waiver to the forms applicants have to sign to go forward with the exam.

As we’ve pointed out before, waivers are for bloodsports and human subject trials. If a state seeks this kind of waiver, it’s implicitly recognizing that the July in-person bar examination is the sort of inherently dangerous activity that really doesn’t need to happen at all. There are certainly ways to screw up an online exam process — trust us, DC found a way — but by and large moving to remote testing at a time when new cases in Missouri are seeing triple-digit increases is the more prudent course of action.

But as long as the bar examiners aren’t getting sued, they’re fine turning the exam into the Lake of the Ozarks.

Earlier: North Carolina Also Demands Waiver In Case It Kills Anyone With Bar Exam
Bar Exam Applicants Forced To Sign COVID Waiver In Case In-Person Exam Ends Up Killing Them

---

Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

Guess which White House employee just got caught casting a mail-in ballot using a false address. No, not the president. That was last week.

Here’s a hint: After Trump ranted about widespread vote fraud and kids who “raid the mailboxes and they hand them to people that are signing the ballots down at the end of the street,” this Harvard Law grad and ATL alum defended her boss, telling Newsweek, “Absentee voting has the word absent in it for a reason. It means you’re absent from the jurisdiction or unable to vote in person. President Trump is against the Democrat plan to politicize the coronavirus and expand mass mail-in voting without a reason, which has a high propensity for voter fraud. This is a simple distinction that the media fails to grasp.”

Oh, you dummies in the media! Or perhaps not, since Newsweek managed to suss out that Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany voted by mail 11 times since 2010, and now Huffington Post’s S.V. Date and Ryan Reilly have discovered that McEnany used her parents address in Tampa to cast her votes in the 2018 midterms, despite living in DC, possessing a New Jersey drivers license, and owning a separate home in Tampa with her husband. Whoopsie!

In 2017, McEnany was appointed spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee (RNC), which is headquartered in Arlington, Virginia. In 2019, she joined the Trump campaign as national press secretary, during which time she voted by mail in Florida’s March 2019 presidential primary, before taking a job at the White House this past April. There are a lot of places in the DMV where McEnany could have resided in the past three years while shilling for the Trump team full time, but Florida isn’t one of them.

Indeed, it’s not clear when McEnany last resided in the Sunshine State, although she and her husband Sean Gilmartin, a pitcher for the Tampa Bay Rays, do own a home in Tampa. According to HuffPo, McEnany held a driver’s license from Edgewater, New Jersey, when she purchased the Tampa residence in 2017. Because, sure, why not.

HuffPo reports that McEnany was interviewed by a Tampa radio station in 2019 and claimed that she worked in DC but flew to Florida “pretty much every weekend.” And later that year, she did manage to switch her official residence to her own house in Tampa, yet in both the primary and general elections of 2018, McEnany mailed in her vote using her parents’ address to substantiate Florida residency. And in the March 2020 presidential primary, she cast a mail-in ballot in Florida, although she was then employed full time for the Trump campaign, living in DC.

All of which is rather awkward for a person whose party is incessantly flogging conspiracies about electoral fraud and the need to “True the Vote” by purging voters. Wisconsin’s GOP is suing to toss 129,000 voters off the rolls for potential ineligibility due to address changes, Crystal Mason, a black mother of three in Texas, is facing a five-year sentence for mistakenly casting a ballot when she was ineligible, and the president is peddling nonsense about illegal voters who “go to their car, put on a different hat, put on a different shirt, come in and vote again.”

Meanwhile the president is trying to register to vote using his business address and his 32-year-old spokesperson voted multiple times using her parents’ address where she does not appear to have resided since she graduated from high school. Will McEnany face prosecution by the state of Florida for illegal voting?

Don’t hold your breath. Although … if she did happen to, say, file her state return in Florida, which has no income tax, while spending upwards of 180 nights a year in DC and working there full time, those “dummies” in the media are probably going to figure it out. Because DC residents have to pay DC taxes, no matter where they claim to “reside.” And that’s a “simple distinction” even a Harvard Law grad should be able to grasp.

As They Scream Voter Fraud, Trump And His Press Secretary May Have Voted Illegally [HuffPo]

---

Elizabeth Dye (@5DollarFeminist) lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.

Who would have thought that with the nation slowly rising out of (hopefully) the worst of the COVID-19 pandemic, we would become embroiled in civil unrest resulting from the horrific mistreatment and death of George Floyd at the hands of now-former police officers of the Minneapolis Police Department. Like most Americans with a conscience, I remain stunned and horrified by it. As it is an election year, it is no surprise that President Donald Trump and Joe Biden have both weighed in on the matter. What is interesting, however, is that Trump’s campaign created a 4-minute video tribute to George Floyd that was posted on social media yet unceremoniously removed soon thereafter on Twitter and Facebook’s Instagram ostensibly on copyright infringement grounds. Oddly, it’s not just the reasons for the takedowns but the assumptions underlying the content that are worth closer examination, whether or not politics has anything to do with it.

Given that the recent tragedy and aftermath seem the impetus for the video, some of the published facts would be helpful.  On May 25, 2020, George Floyd (a 46-year-old black man) died in Minneapolis, Minnesota, after Derek Chauvin, a white police officer, basically knelt on Floyd’s neck for over eight minutes while Floyd was handcuffed and lying face down on the street. Despite Floyd’s pleas that he couldn’t breathe, the surrounding police officers did nothing to intervene. Heartbreaking. This event has stirred-up protests throughout the nation, as well as serious unrest and looting in some metropolitan areas. In the wake of this tumult, Trump’s presidential campaign put together a video intended to be a tribute to Floyd to unite Americans. Instead, the takedown by Twitter and Instagram has caused even more controversy.

The video (which, interestingly, remains available on YouTube), depicts a montage of no less than 141 videos and still photographs (yes, I counted), with Trump addressing the tragedy, sympathizing with the peaceful protesters, and condemning “rioters, looters, and anarchists” for dishonoring the memory of Floyd.  It ends with the word “Unite.” Regardless of your political persuasion, it is hard to argue that the video is not a powerful one. That said, Twitter quickly removed the video from its platform, claiming it was doing so consistent with its terms of service due to “a DMCA complaint from copyright holder.” Apparently, Facebook made the same assertion for the Instagram takedown. Oddly, YouTube did NOT remove the video from its platform, despite having also received a DMCA takedown notice. Interesting, indeed.

Whether or not you agree with Twitter and Facebook (or YouTube for that matter), the fact remains that the takedowns further enraged the Trump campaign and place additional scrutiny on social media, the DMCA, and immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA).  Given the recent executive order signed by Trump directing federal agencies to alter their interpretation of the liability protections afforded internet service providers under Section 230, these takedowns are further fanning the flames of the debate.

I have written previously about how political campaigns should avoid certain assumptions regarding the use of copyrighted music. The following are a few considerations that bear consideration by political campaigns when compiling other audiovisual content for political ads and other campaign videos:

Never Assume That The Intended Use Qualifies As Fair Use. Except for those areas expressly identified as non-infringing uses under Section 107 of the Copyright Act, any determination of “fair use” of a copyrighted work requires weighing factors that includes the following four factors:

1. “the purpose and character of the use” (e.g., commercial use or nonprofit educational purpose);
2. “the nature of the copyrighted work”;
3. “the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole”; and
4. “the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.”

No matter how appealing, assuming that the use of another’s artwork or video in a political ad or campaign video qualifies as “fair use” of the work is ill-advised. Such “political fair use” is by no means consistently handled by the courts, so there is little guidance that a court would weigh the factors in a campaign’s favor. Without question, care should be taken when considering “fair use” in this context.

Never Presume Consistent Application Of Social Media Terms For Political Content. If it seems that I frustrated by how social media platforms handle these requests, I am. From what I can gather, the same DMCA notice was sent to Twitter, Facebook (Instagram), and YouTube, yet only Twitter and Instagram complied. YouTube did not find the “protected material” in the video on its site, however, so the video remains posted on their platform (for now). As a private practitioner, it is difficult to advise clients on DMCA takedowns when there is little consistency not only between platforms, but within the platforms themselves (let alone for political content in this day and age). Always be aware of the IP infringement policies of the platform at issue, and then research how they have handled such claims as best you can — it will provide needed perspective.

Never, Ever, Assume The Copyright Holder Agrees With You. No matter how ostensibly unifying the message, political campaigns foment strong opinions. There is never a guarantee that the copyright holder will agree with the message, no matter how benign the campaign may think it to be. This goes beyond the DMCA takedown — copyright holders with large social media followings can wreak havoc on a campaign by unleashing followers. Although Trump seems to relish fighting back against such trolling, not every campaign is anchored by such a personality running for office, so politicians beware.

What cannot be ignored here, however, is that the rights of copyright holders and websites should always remain balanced against public policy considerations underlying the use. From my perspective, the DMCA does not account for such balance — it is a procedural mechanism for notice to the social media platform (or website operator) and a potential counternotice by the poster of the content to defeat the takedown. For example, the 141 videos and still photographs show protests, rioting, street art depicting George Floyd, as well as police offers embracing protesters (to name a few), all stitched together consistent with the narration provided by Trump — there is no information as to which element of the video triggered the DMCA notice, but it seems to be just one of the videos or photos. Any DMCA takedown premised upon a single video or photograph appears harsh, and obtaining consent from all of the copyright holders before posting is simply not feasible for this type of work. Whether or not you agree with the takedowns, I think the debate about the DMCA (recently the subject of Senate hearings)  as well as Section 230 of the CDA (misconceptions of which I wrote about last week) has been a long time coming. So political campaigns should take heed — the protests involving the Floyd tragedy are ongoing, but the protests over copyright, the DMCA, and Section 230 have just begun.

---

Tom Kulik is an Intellectual Property & Information Technology Partner at the Dallas-based law firm of Scheef & Stone, LLP. In private practice for over 20 years, Tom is a sought-after technology lawyer who uses his industry experience as a former computer systems engineer to creatively counsel and help his clients navigate the complexities of law and technology in their business. News outlets reach out to Tom for his insight, and he has been quoted by national media organizations. Get in touch with Tom on Twitter (@LegalIntangibls) or Facebook (www.facebook.com/technologylawyer), or contact him directly at tom.kulik@solidcounsel.com.

Maryland lawmakers have introduced legislation to do a little Capitol remodeling. Specifically, they’re hoping to swap out a bust adorning the old Supreme Court chamber where for the last 143 years, the state has been represented by Dred Scott author Chief Justice Roger Taney.

George Templeton Strong best summed up Taney, writing upon the occasion of his passing, “the Hon. old Roger B. Taney has earned the gratitude of his country by dying at last. Better late than never.” During the initial debate to get Taney’s bust into the Capitol building, a New Hampshire senator said that Taney “sank into his grave without giving a cheering word or a helping hand to the country he had vainly sought to place forever by judicial authority under the iron rule of the slave-masters.”

Yet Taney eventually got his bust and it’s managed to remain undisturbed as the world changed in fits and starts — and setbacks — for almost a century and a half. Even the Maryland statehouse quietly dumped their Taney tribute.

But now Maryland’s senators, with backing from the Democratic members of the Maryland House delegation, are proposing to junk the bust in favor of Baltimore native Thurgood Marshall.

If successful, the replacement would provide a fitting closure to the history of Maryland’s place in the old chamber. A jurist famed for his staunch defense of the system of slavery replaced by the nation’s first justice descended from slaves. Thurgood Marshall’s legacy as an attorney, Johnson administration official, and Supreme Court justice deserve tribute in the Capitol regardless, but to bring that tribute at the symbolic expense of a man who worked to prevent all of Marshall’s accomplishments would only underscore the significance of his enshrinement.

Taney’s earned his place in the dustbin of history, it’s time for Congress to help him move.

Thurgood Marshall bust would replace one of Roger Taney in U.S. Capitol under legislation introduced by Maryland senators [Baltimore Sun]

Earlier: Horrible Justice No Longer Has Horrible Statue

---

Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.