PRNewsFoto/Netflix, Inc.

A Senate update to the Video Privacy Protection Act will allow Netflix to add social functions to its site, letting customers share notice about the movies they’ve watched on Facebook and Twitter. Once President Obama signs the law, it will go in effect next year.

The previous law required a police warrant or approval before sharing video rental history. With the new sharing capability, people will automatically share the movies they’ve watched on social networks.

“Social video sharing under the new bill will come with two stipulations: Netflix and similar companies will be required to give users a ‘clear and conspicuous’ option to stop automatically sharing their views, and customers must be asked once every two years if they would like to continue sharing their views,” says Mashable.

Word-of-mouth sharing is an important factor for the success of a film when it’s released in the theaters. Whether it’s controversy — as in the cases of Zero Dark Thirty and Django Unchained, as discussed here on The Atlantic Wire — or buzz surrounding a smaller film that otherwise doesn’t have the budget to compete with something as massive as, say, The Hobbit, the act of sharing praise or interest person-to-person makes money.

In this case, Netflix would benefit more than any one film. But the question is whether people will be rushing to add this notice to their social media updates. Movie buffs might be eager to talk about what they’re watching, but do you want to add one more thing to the long list of updates that you’re posting to your social media feeds?

AP Photo

In an interesting twist on discrimination lawsuits, a white attorney for the San Francisco Housing Authority is suing the agency and its executive director, Henry Alvarez, who is African-American, for discrimination and harassment.

Tim Larsen, the SFHA assistant general counsel, filed the complaint in San Francisco Superior Court on November 21 accusing Alvarez of repeatedly discriminating against white employees in favor of African-American employees. He also claims the executive director is a bully who uses offensive language and behavior in the office.

Larsen said he was repeatedly passed over for promotions and better assignments in favor of his African-American colleagues, decisions made by Alvarez. He cited several instances of language used by Alvarez where he demonstrated his favoritism for African-American employees.

The San Francisco Chronicle has more in-depth coverage of the lawsuit, looking into Alvarez’s background at the San Antonio Housing Authority where an employee also filed a complaint against him for an “inappropriate outburst.” The paper also spoke to several past employees of Alvarez, who echoed Larsen’s complaints about questionable behavior.

This position at the SFHA has also had its share of controversies, with previous executive directors leaving because of wrongdoings and inaction. The Chronicle reported that the SFHA operates 6,476 units of low-income housing at 45 housing projects throughout San Francisco, as well as runs the Section 8 voucher program.

Amos Brown, president of the Housing Authority Commission, calls the lawsuit “a joke,” asking “How can he be discriminated against?”
What do you think? Is it possible?

University of Maryland law professor Sherrilyn Ifill has been tapped to lead the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF), starting in January 2013. She will be following in the footsteps of the legendary Thurgood Marshall, who headed the LDF when it was first launched in 1940 until 1961. The LDF is the country’s first and foremost civil and human rights law firm.

It’s a perfect fit. Ifill is a civil rights litigator who has specialized in voting rights and political participation, and she is also an LDF alum. According to the Afro, as a young attorney, Ifill served as assistant counsel in LDF’s New York office.

“It was a dream come true to serve as a lawyer at LDF years ago, and it is a high honor to return to this premiere institution as president and director-counsel,” Ifill said in a statement.

LDF, which was founded more than 70 years ago, focuses on legal advocacy centered around advancing equality in the criminal justice system, achieving educational parity, increasing political participation and ensuring the appointment of fair-minded and diverse judges. Some of most famous civil rights cases were prompted by the LDF. When the LDF coordinated legal assault against officially enforced public school segregation, the campaign culminated in Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark Supreme Court decision in 1954 that overturned the “separate but equal” doctrine of legally sanctioned discrimination, known as Jim Crow.

Ifill says she is up to the task. “I am looking forward to working with the LDF team, allies and partners to advance an innovative 21st century civil rights practice that confronts the barriers to equality and justice in the lives of the most marginalized members of our community,” she added in the press statement.

Outside of he courtroom and classroom, Ifill is a noted public intellectual, who regularly offers commentary on pressing issues. Ifill, a graduate of the New York University School of Law,  is also the author of On the Courthouse Lawn: Confronting the Legacy of Lynching in the 21st Century.

In 1993 Ifill joined the faculty of  the University Maryland School of Law, where she established several innovative legal clinics, including an environmental justice clinic, and one of the first legal clinics in the nation to focus on the legal rights of ex-offenders.

If her surname sounds familiar, Ifill is a cousin of noted Public Broadcast System news anchor Gwen Ifill.

Rihanna singing live. Adam J. Sablich / Shutterstock.com

Atlantic Records once alleged that legendary R&B singer Ruth Brown owed them $30,000 from advances the company had given her. No, she said at the time, Atlantic actually owed her. She fought and fought, even gaining the support of the Reverend Jesse Jackson. In 1989, Atlanta “forgave” her debt and paid her $20,000 in overdue royalties. Because of her efforts, the royalty payment system was reformed.

We’ve all heard the Behind the Music stories of artists who sold millions but made next to nothing. Most recently, we got Toni Braxton’s take on her bankruptcy filing and the low pay she received despite being one of the biggest artists of the ’90s. TLC went to the press years ago with their money woes, claiming that they never received their fair share of  the money they generated for their record company and manager, Pebbles’s company Pebbitone. As the NY Times reported in 1996, “TLC’s contract with Pebbitone gives the group 7 percent of the revenues from the sale of the first 500,000 copies of the debut and second albums.”

And who can forget when Prince went around with the word “slave” written on his face, saying that his record company basically owned him and his music. At the time he stated, “I became merely a pawn used to produce more money for Warner Bros.” Eventually he was able to break his contract with the label.

Rihanna and Missy Elliot are following in the steps of Brown, and are fighting to reform the royalty system — this time in the digital arena. The artists were among a group of 125 singers and musicians to sign an open letter to Pandora Media Inc. opposing the online music company’s proposed changes to how artists are compensated.

Pandora is currently lobbying lawmakers in US Congress to pass the “Internet Radio Fairness Act,”  which would change regulation of how royalties are paid to artists for music streamed over the Web. According to the Internet music company’s website focused on the issue, laws have been passed as innovation in the music industry has developed. As a result, “satellite pays about 7.5% of revenues and cable pays about 15%, while Pandora pays more than 50% of revenue in royalties.”

So here’s the wrinkle, the new bill would cut by 85 percent the amount of money an artist receives when their songs are played over the Internet. Pandora says it needs to pay artists less in royalties in order for them to continue to stream music. “A sustainable Internet radio industry will benefit all artists, big and small,” Tim Westergren, Pandora’s founder and chief strategy officer said in a statement.

Pandora actually doesn’t make money off of streaming music. Most of Pandora’s profits come from advertising. While Westergren claims slashing the royalties are necessary, the company saw it share of total US radio listening rise to almost seven percent, up from about four percent. But, as Yahoo! reports, “Pandora’s success has been double-edged – the more customers it gains, the more money it has to pay overall for rights to stream music.”

The Internet Radio Fairness Act is a bipartisan bill. If Pandora does get its way, the change won’t come anytime soon. The current rate is set until 2015.

What’s interesting is that the artists are being asked to take a cut while listeners will get the same level of service. Do you pay to listen to online radio, something like Spotify’s premium service?

Photo courtesy of freerangephotos.com

Since our country’s inception, black women have been instrumental in shaping the law of the land. They overcame racial and gender barriers to become lawyers and judges, while using their influence to enact laws for the greater good of society. One legal eagle – a former slave – never went to law school, but possessed the innate ability to present oral arguments before the Supreme Court. These trailblazers reshaped the legal landscape in their pursuit of liberty and justice for all.

Charlotte Ray

Charlotte Ray has the distinction of being the first black female lawyer in the United States. In 1869, she applied for admission to Howard University’s Law School under the name “C.E. Ray” since the university discouraged women from applying to law school.  When Ray graduated from Howard in 1872 with a degree in commercial law, she was the first black woman – and only the third female in the United States – to receive a law degree. That same year, she also became the first woman admitted to the bar in the District of Columbia.

source: Hubze.com

Facebook tells all, and soon, the popular social media network will tell even more.

Louisiana lawmakers passed a new law requiring sex offenders and child predators to list their criminal status on Facebook and other social media websites.

The New York Daily News Reports:

While Facebook already bans registered sex offenders from creating accounts, State Rep. Jeff Thompson, who authored the legislation, says the new law will help ensure no one slips through the cracks.

“I don’t want to leave [it] in the hands of social network[s] or Facebook administrators. ‘Gee, I hope someone is telling the truth,’” Thompson, an attorney and father of two, told CNN. “This is another tool for prosecutors.”

The new law goes into effect August 1. Thompson says it’s the first of its kind in the nation, and hopes other states will follow suit.

Several already require sex offenders and child predators to register their email addresses and social network profiles with authorities, but Louisiana is the first to require they explicitly list their crimes on their profile pages.

The law mandates that child predators and sex offenders “shall include in his profile for the networking website an indication that he is a sex offender or child predator and shall include notice of the crime for which he was convicted, the jurisdiction of conviction, a description of his physical characteristics … and his residential address”.

Thompson says he drafted the legislation last year after a federal court rejected a different Louisiana law that totally banned sex offenders and child predators from using the Internet. He says the new law will help keep children safe.

I challenge you today to walk down the street to see how many people and children are checking Pinterest, Instagram and other social networking sites. If you look at how common it is, that’s 24 hours a day, seven days a week for somebody to interact with your children and your grandchildren.

Facebook agrees with the law, telling CNN: “We have consistently supported legislation to help strengthen law enforcement’s ability to find, prosecute and convict online sexual predators.”

It will be interesting to see if this law catches on in other states considering the increased usage of social media and the internet in general by young children. Right now, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act prohibits children under the age of 13 from using sites such as Facebook. However, shrewd kids, parents and older siblings or friends circumvent those rules and Consumer Reports says nearly 7.5 million children under the age of 13 are currently using Facebook.  Founder, Mark Zuckerberg, has said he’d like to challenge the law and find a way to legally allow children under 13 to access the site.

Of course, sexual offenders can be a threat to people well over the age of 13 and it doesn’t hurt to know who you’re talking to online. However, what’s the point of letting a person out of prison if he’s going to have to wear his crime like a banner for the rest of his life? I don’t want some sicko trying to contact me or anyone else, but if he is utilizing Facebook in a way that has nothing to do with his crime, it seems excessive to require him to list it. I can see where they’re trying to going with this law but is there anyone who is actually going to list this information on his social media page?  Probably not.

If Louisiana can find a way to enforce this law, it seems they have just found a way to effectively discourage sexual offenders from using Facebook. If not, it’s just more useless legislation.

What do you think about this law? Should sex offenders be required to disclose their criminal history on social media?

Alissa Henry is a freelance writer living in Columbus, OH. Follow her on Twitter @AlissaInPink

More on Madame Noire!

• Noire Naturals, Episode 1: The Natural Twist Out
• In Coolest Ish Ever News: Photographer Gives Black Barbie a Traditional Nigerian Wedding
• Snatch It Off! Celebrities Who Should Toss Their Wigs
• Controlling, Manipulative & A Crazy Beyotch: 7 Signs This Might Be You in Your Relationship…
• Are You Dealing With a Real Man Or A Little Boy? 7 Signs You’ve Got a Grown A** Man
• MN Exclusive: Teedra Moses Dishes on Her Faithful Following, Finding Love, and Rick Ross
• The Joys of Thrift Shopping: Why I Shop at Goodwill and NOT Forever 21

A freshman girl dating a senior guy is a common scenario in high school. For some, the story ends with popularity, a high school sweetheart, maybe even heartbreak, but for others there is shame, stigma, and maybe even a charge of statutory rape.

The Daily Beast reports that there are a growing number of parents across all 50 states who are fighting to protect their children from the sex-offender laws that were meant to do just that. From their view, the punishments inflicted on high-school boys are far too harsh and they want the laws to change.

One mother, Francie Baldino, says her son Ken’s prison term was unthinkable. In 2004, the 18-year-old high school senior was arrested for having sex with his girlfriend who was a 14-year-old freshman. Because the age of consent in Michigan is 16, he was sentenced to a year in jail and three years’ probation. When Ken was released from jail he violated probation by resuming his relationship with the girl and then was given a sentence of five to fifteen years. After serving six years behind bars, he’s now forced to wear a GPS device and was told his home address and personal information would be listed in the sex-offender registry for 25 years.

When a guy is in his 20s and a girl is 14, the issue of sex with a minor is a no-brainer, but when we’re talking two high-school students, one of whom may have just become a legal adult, the issue is much more gray. Even Fred Mester, the judge in Ken’s case openly acknowledged the complexities of statutory rape laws when he sentenced him in 2005, saying, “Half my senior class … were dating freshman girls, and I suspect half of them would be in here today.”

While the prevalence of the act doesn’t mean it should be excused, it does call into question whether the law should recognize the difference between teen sex and teen rape. As Ken’s attorney, Cheryl Carpenter says, “The laws often don’t differentiate between a 50-year-old man molesting a 14-year-old girl, and two teenagers having sex.”

But how could that be done? Often times girls who sleep with older boys say the sex was consensual, but in an age where so many teen girls are admitting to being coerced into having sex or performing certain sexual acts, it’s hard to know whether they are telling the truth or protecting boys they are scared of. And as prosecutors argue, the law is there so there’s no need to delve into this issue of distinction at all. They say the law is the law and kids need to follow it regardless of whatever urges or relationships they have.

“The court isn’t imposing restrictions because it’s fun—it’s the law,” Paul Walton, a chief assistant prosecutor in Michigan, says. “You can disagree on the age of consent, but the law says that prior to that age, a person doesn’t have the ability to consent.”

Although following the law truly is the bottom line in these cases and the aim isn’t to encourage teen sex—although that behavior isn’t going anywhere—unfair laws are protested all the time.  With boys like Ken, who has now been taken off the sex-offender registry but remains a convicted felon for life, you have to wonder if their futures are being thrown away before they even get started with these harsh penalties.

Do you think sex-offender laws are too harsh when it comes to teens? Should legislators work to modify the laws or should they stand as they are to protect young girls?

Brande Victorian is a blogger and culture writer in New York City. Follower her on Twitter at @be_vic.

More on Madame Noire!

• Sisters In Hiding: Not So Famous Sisters of Famous Celebs
• Delusions Of A Thirsty Chick
• Things Black Mothers Say
• Celebrity Mistresses: The Good, The Bad, and The Trifling
• 7 Curl Defining Products to Get Your Curls and Coils Poppin’
• Family Ties: 7 Rappers Who Finally Grew Up
• He Loves Me: Men Who Just Adore Their Wives
• What Exactly Makes Something Ghetto?

Andre Davis, a Cincinnati wrestler who goes by the stage name “Gangsta of Love” was sentenced to 32 years in prison yesterday for having sex with women and not informing them that he had tested positive for HIV.

The 29-year-old was convicted in November when prosecutors said he violated state law by not telling a dozen sex partners about his HIV status. On Monday, Davis told the judge he is a sex addict and that his addiction grew worse when he lost his dream of becoming a professional wrestler after contracting HIV. In July 2009,World Wrestling Entertainment told Davis they wouldn’t hire him because he failed a physical and tested positive.

Davis claimed he didn’t tell anyone about his status because he didn’t want his family to know, saying “I a not a monster,” but the prosecution shot back, calling him “A manipulative man and a liar.”

Medical privacy laws prevented attorneys from mentioning whether or not other women had contracted the virus from Davis, but his attorney argued that the state law regarding HIV and felonious assault is poorly written because it doesn’t require proof that there has been harm or an attempt to commit harm. After Monday’s sentencing, he told the Associated Press he would file an appeal on Davis’ behalf.

Do you think 32 years is a sufficient sentence for Andre Davis?

Brande Victorian is a blogger and culture writer in New York City. Follower her on Twitter at @be_vic.

More on Madame Noire!

• Things Black Mothers Say
• Celebrity Mistresses: The Good, The Bad, and The Trifling
• 7 Curl Defining Products to Get Your Curls and Coils Poppin’
• How to Attract a Healthy Relationship This Year
• 6 Ways to Tackle Relationship Arguments
• He Loves Me: Men Who Just Adore Their Wives
• Evening Eye Candy: Larenz Tate

Security guards in a Washington, DC DMV picked the wrong mother to mess with this week. When Simone dos Santos was breastfeeding her 4-month-old in a hallway, two female security guards asked her to stop because it was indecent. What they didn’t know was dos Santos is an attorney, and she wasn’t about to take their “indecent exposure” claim at face value.

“I called my law firm to ask for pro bono assistance and an associate who could immediately research whether there was a law regarding breastfeeding in public,” dos Santos wrote in a blog for the Washington Post. “I wanted to get the name of all of the guards involved, and finally got a name and number of a supervisor before I was called into the room for the hearing on the parking ticket.”

dos Santos added that she’s since learned that the guards were wrong and had no right to stop her from breastfeeding her son. Citing the “Child’s Right to Nurse Human Rights Amendment Act of 2007, she said the law allows women to breastfeed in any location she has a right to be with her child—-public or private.

Stories like these aren’t uncommon. Last year, ABC did a little undercover experiment to gauge people’s reaction to mothers breastfeeding in public. Most people didn’t approve, but approval and rights are two separate things.

Are you bothered by women breastfeeding in public? Have you ever been asked or asked someone else to stop breastfeeding when you were out?

Brande Victorian is a blogger and culture writer in New York City. Follower her on Twitter at @be_vic.

More on Madame Noire!

• Dead Three Years and Nobody Notices
• Kissing Frogs: Men Every Woman Dates Before Finding the One
• How to Avoid the 45 Year-Old ‘WTF-I’m-Still-Single’ Moment
• Unforgivable Hood Baby Names: Celebrity Edition
• 7 Leave-In Conditioners for Soft and Supple Hair
• This Ain’t VH1′s Version: The Real Real Football Wives of The NFL

(Wall Street Journal) — Student applications to law schools are down sharply this year, as college seniors grow leery of a degree that promises certain debt and uncertain job prospects.  The number of law-school applicants this year is down 11.5% from a year ago to 66,876, according to the Law School Admission Council Inc. The figure, which is a tally of applications for the fall 2011 class, is the lowest since 2001 at this stage of the process. The Council estimates that the application process is 86% complete, based on historical patterns.  Prospective law students increasingly are aware of the grim job market for lawyers and the challenges they would face in paying off law-school loans, college career advisers said. Corporate law firms, long the employer of choice for many graduates, have cut back on hiring in recent years, and most firms haven’t raised salaries for starting lawyers.

Read More…