THE FORUM: NORTHWESTERN’S PREMIER LEGAL BLOG

Reese Rosental Saporito 4/20/23 Reese Rosental Saporito 4/20/23

Artificial Intelligence can Make Art, But Who is the Real Artist?

By: Jonah Elkowitz

Edited By: luke vredenburg and claire quan

“Draw a dog in a courtroom. Show me a cow on the moon.” We have all seen these prompts across the internet, showcasing how artificial intelligence can create an image of our choosing. DALL-E, Midjourney and Stable Diffusion are among the many AI tools capable of this, referencing digitized art records to create custom images and taking the tech world by storm.

While many AI-related tools have emerged for gathering information and processing data, such as Open.AI, this program produces a bespoke visual for the user. This begs the question — who is the artist? One might say the algorithm or the artist who created the original work, but the answer is more complicated.

Several lawsuits have been filed around the globe by prominent art databases and individual artists alike, claiming that they, not the AI, are the owners of the works.[1] One case, filed by Getty Images in the High Court of Justice in London, accuses Stability AI of utilizing copyrighted content to create their images, claiming “stability AI unlawfully copied and processed millions of images protected by copyright and the associated metadata owned or represented by Getty Images absent a license.”[2] . In another case, the Saveri Law firm filed suit on January 13th in the US District Court for the Northern District of California.[3] The case alleges that AI art software infringes on the rights of “thousands of artists and creators” and creates a financial burden for them to bear.[4] This case will decide the legality of content use and affect the incomes and royalties of artists worldwide. If the court rules in AI’s favor, artists may be left in the dust when it comes to receiving compensation for use of their work.

Artists, databases, and independent creators alike are arguing that software companies are stealing original artwork from their creators. Drawing upon U.S. law, they contest that the usage of their images indiscriminately violated intellectual property laws that are established to protect artists and their work.[5] Companies such as Stability AI haven’t addressed the issue of intellectual property. Moreover, they do not discuss the basis for their artificial intelligence tools but claim their software is open source.[6]

Artificial intelligence relies on art collections to base its creations.[7] The creators of such algorithms sample thousands of paintings, photographs, and drawings from history. The ultimate goal is for the algorithm to master a specific aesthetic, then recreate it as often as possible, in as many ways as possible. [8]

So, who is the artist? The courts have yet to answer, but AI software is objectively plagiarizing artists' work to create a work of its own. Though the product isn't identical to that of its original creator, some aspects of it are taken, manipulated, and repurposed. The lack of legal precedent makes the answer ambiguous. However, according to the U.S. Copyright Office, “copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner.”[9] Using this definition, some form of credit or compensation should be given by AI platforms to creators for infringing on their copyrights, though time will tell if this comes to fruition.

Notes:

O'Brien, Matt. “AI Tools Can Create New Images, but Who Is the Real Artist?” AP NEWS. Associated Press, January 19, 2023. https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-images-rights-1c6d9e0e260e2d135a3e3bf98d5493df.
“Getty Images Statement.” Newsroom, January 17, 2023. https://newsroom.gettyimages.com/en/getty-images/getty-images-statement.
Andersen et al v. Stability AI Ltd. et al (2023)
“Ai Art Generator Copyright Litigation - Joseph Saveri Law Firm.” AI Art Generator Copyright Litigation - Joseph Saveri Law Firm. Accessed February 1, 2023. https://www.saverilawfirm.com/our-cases/ai-artgenerators-copyright-litigation.
“Getty Images Statement.” Newsroom, January 17, 2023.
“Stability Ai.” Stability AI. Accessed April 2, 2023. https://stability.ai/.
“Ai Is Blurring the Definition of Artist.” American Scientist, June 14, 2019. https://www.americanscientist.org/article/ai-is-blurring-the-definition-of-artist.
“Ai Is Blurring the Definition of Artist.” American Scientist, June 14, 2019.
“Definitions.” Definitions (FAQ) | U.S. Copyright Office. Accessed February 1, 2023. https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
“Ai Art Generator Copyright Litigation - Joseph Saveri Law Firm.” AI Art Generator Copyright Litigation - Joseph Saveri Law Firm. Accessed February 1, 2023. https://www.saverilawfirm.com/our-cases/ai-artgenerators-copyright-litigation.
“Ai Is Blurring the Definition of Artist.” American Scientist, June 14, 2019. https://www.americanscientist.org/article/ai-is-blurring-the-definition-of-artist.
Andersen et al v. Stability AI Ltd. et al (US District Court for the Northern District of California January 13, 2023).
“Definitions.” Definitions (FAQ) | U.S. Copyright Office. Accessed February 1, 2023. https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html.
“Getty Images Statement.” Newsroom, January 17, 2023. https://newsroom.gettyimages.com/en/getty-images/getty-images-statement.
O'Brien, Matt. “AI Tools Can Create New Images, but Who Is the Real Artist?” AP NEWS. Associated Press, January 19, 2023. https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-images-rights-1c6d9e0e260e2d135a3e3bf98d5493df.
“Stability Ai.” Stability AI. Accessed April 2, 2023. https://stability.ai/.

Reese Rosental Saporito 4/20/23 Reese Rosental Saporito 4/20/23

A Comprehensive Overview of AI Usage and Ethics in Legal Professions

By: Darya Tadlaoui

Edited By: anna westfall and emily yang

The past fifty or so years – and particularly the last decade – have cultivated previously unimaginable expansion of artificial intelligence (AI) technology into virtually every sector of the economy. Machines that previously were equipped solely to computerize the standardized tasks required of factory jobs have now been programmed with tools to deduce the meaning of and intention behind particular instructions. [1] With such drastic advancements in the field, numerous jobs that were once impossible to replicate have now been rendered obsolete.

Discourse surrounding AI within legal occupations predicts varying degrees of possibility for total incorporation into the field. Some experts believe that law necessitates a human aspect that cannot be imitated by technology; others condemn current niche technology for perpetuating racialized stereotypes; others remain excitedly under the impression that there is profitable potential to be found in making particular advancements. Understanding the implications of employing AI in legal work is crucial to evaluating its value to attorneys, judges, and clients alike.

Historic and present-day uses

On a basic level, AI has been well established in the field of law for the past decade. [2] Since the ruling in Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe, 287 F.R.D. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) preserved the use of predictive coding to find electronically-stored information for discovery purposes, conducting research and screening documents and contracts with AI has become a conventional method utilized by most lawyers and their paralegals. [3] The task of performing keyword searches has been shortened by programs that can identify various files relevant to a certain word when given just one. [4] Moreover, software companies such as Casetext and ROSS Intelligence are developing advances in natural language processing (NLP) technology systems that can understand and interpret text in a quasi-human way, surpassing mere keyword searches to materialize exceedingly relevant information. [5]

Apart from the more simplistic processes of completing research and scanning documents, AI has been and is currently exercised in two main areas: contract analytics and litigation prediction. [6] In the former subsection, rudimentary NLP technology funded by companies like Kira Systems has made it possible to keep track of a multitude of contracts and their specifications, which is of particular use to corporate firms; this could look like compiling renewal dates and simplifying (or even igniting) the process of negotiating existing terms. [7] The latter involves predicting outcomes of pending cases based upon inputs of relevant precedent, serving not only to aid attorneys in planning litigation strategies but also to clarify decisions litigation investors should make regarding which cases to back. [8]

Drawbacks of access to predictive AI

Nevertheless, developed predictive technology, when used in individual rather than corporate cases, is doomed to reflect a flawed carceral system. Algorithms that utilize past administrative data to inform their decisions are only as fair and just as that data. This issue has become glaringly obvious in the increased use of Northpointe’s Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS) system by courtrooms, a program designed to predict the likelihood that a particular offender will become a recidivist. In fact, a two-year study conducted by ProPublica found major flaws in its code, such that only 20% of the people the system predicted to commit violent crimes actually went on to do so, pointing to an overly liberal methodology. [9] Further, the tool’s racial profiling became abundantly clear – the formula wrongly labeled Black defendants as future criminals almost twice as often as it did white defendants, and amongst all Black defendants regardless of criminal history, age, and gender, there was a 77% likelihood the system pegged them at higher risk of committing a violent crime in the future. [10]

The biased code has had such an effect on case outcomes that several defendants have sued miscellaneous involved parties over Wisconsin’s use of COMPAS in reaching a final decree, with varying rates of success. In Loomis v. Wisconsin, 137 S.Ct. 2290 (2017), Loomis claimed that factoring COMPAS’s predictions into a guilty verdict was a violation of his due process rights. [11] Loomis was denied post-conviction relief on the grounds that judges are made aware of COMPAS’s shortcomings before reaching a decision and ultimately impose a sentence based on their total knowledge of the defendant. [12] On the other hand, In Henderson v. Steinsberg et al., No. 21-1586 (7th Cir. 2021), Henderson sued both Northpointe’s leaders and the Wisconsin Parole Board after he was denied parole after a 40-year sentence, claiming all involved actors knew of COMPAS’s racial bias and that the parole board still chose to use it instead of financing an improvement. [13] Though the case was dismissed, the Judge was aligned with Henderson’s grievances, contending that Henderson’s appeal on the basis of equal rights should be distinguished from the precedent set by Loomis’s appeal on the basis of due process. [14]

Apart from COMPAS, other legal-oriented AI have proved to play a significant role in bolstering racially charged decisions in the criminal justice system. United States v. Curry, 965 F.3d 313 (4th Cir. 2020) saw an abuse of police power made possible by an algorithm detecting hotspots of criminal activity; Curry was stopped and arrested for possession of a firearm in one such hotspot and appealed, stating he was subject to unlawful search and seizure. [15] The 4th circuit agreed, with Judge Gregory claiming the exchange represented a “high-tech version of racial profiling.” [16] Thus, drawbacks in the usage of AI for legal purposes are evident. Not only do these “judge bots” perpetuate inequality, but they also have the potential to advance it even further as prejudiced outcomes seem to be the result of “objective” computer analysis and not the system this analysis mirrors. [17]

Potential for making the law more efficient and accessible

Of course, there is no denying that the AI technology utilized by legal professionals today has made particular tasks easier for attorneys and consequently more affordable for clients. According to researchers Dana Remus and Frank Levy, if a firm were to adopt all existing legal technology immediately, their working hours would decrease by about 13%. [18] Even a more realistic adoption rate, they say, would result in a 2.5% annual decrease over five years. [19] Presently, even basic document review at large firms has become so automated that the task only takes up about 4% of a given lawyer’s time. [20] With emerging NLP technology, this trend could be applied to more arduous tasks and streamline efficiency further. For example, ROSS, the world’s first AI “lawyer,” saves attorneys an estimated 20 to 30 hours per case simply by understanding the intent behind their questions and drafting memos detailing appropriate responses. [21]

This is good news for clients: less time spent on a particular case means fewer billable hours. There’s a good chance that, should NLP-powered AI continue to evolve, those who previously could not afford legal representation will be able to utilize lawyer-AI duos at a fraction of the cost, thus creating less barriers to entry and more job opportunities for lawyers currently out of work. [22] The creator of ROSS has even pledged to offer the technology to deserving lawyers at no cost to stimulate the formation of new attorney-client relationships. [23]

The future landscape of law in an ever-advancing technological age

The unique capabilities of legal AI to simultaneously empower and victimize marginalized groups have rendered its usage an ethical dilemma to the many individuals poised at the intersection of law and technology. However, it should come as a relief that many legal scholars think we have at least a decade or two to iron out the kinks and debate the utility of our current technology while more complex legal AI is developed. [24] Though our current algorithms are capable of assessing language and conflicts in principle, they cannot yet assume a professional role based on moral judgment. And, frankly, we do not know that they ever will; the human element of law is something that might prove not to be iterable. [25] Rather, the future law firm could look something like what Michael Mills, a lawyer and legal technology start-up strategist, outlines : the partner will remain fixed as the leader of a team, “and more than one of the players will be a machine.” [26]

Notes:

Lohr, Steve. “A.I. Is Doing Legal Work. But It Won't Replace Lawyers, Yet.” The New York Times. The New York Times, March 19, 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/19/technology/lawyers-artificial-intelligence.html?mcubz=0&_r=0.
Donahue, Lauri. “A Primer on Using Artificial Intelligence in the Legal Profession.” Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, January 3, 2018.
Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe, 287 F.R.D. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).
Donahue, Lauri. “A Primer on Using Artificial Intelligence in the Legal Profession.” Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, January 3, 2018.
Toews, Rob. “AI Will Transform The Field Of Law.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 12 Oct. 2022, https://www.forbes.com/sites/robtoews/2019/12/19/ai-will-transform-the-field-of-law/?sh=34e358a57f01.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Angwin, Julia, Jeff Larson, Lauren Kirchner, and Surya Mattu. “Machine Bias.” ProPublica, May 23, 2016. https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing.
Ibid.
Loomis v. Wisconsin, 137 S.Ct. 2290 (2017).
Loomis v. Wisconsin (2017).
Henderson v. Steinsberg, No. 21-1586 (7th Cir. 2021).
Henderson v. Steinsberg (2021).
United States v. Curry, 965 F.3d 313 (4th Cir. 2020)
United States v. Curry (2020).
Stepka, Matthew. “Law Bots: How AI Is Reshaping the Legal Profession.” Business Law Today from ABA. Business Law Today, February 21, 2022. https://businesslawtoday.org/2022/02/how-ai-is-reshaping-legal-profession/.
Remus, Dana, and Frank S. Levy. “Can Robots Be Lawyers? Computers, Lawyers, and the Practice of Law.” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2015. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2701092.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Nunez, Catherine. “Artificial Intelligence and Legal Ethics: Whether AI Lawyers Can Make Ethical Decisions.” Tulane University Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property 20 (August 27, 2019).
Ibid.
Ibid.
Lohr, Steve. “A.I. Is Doing Legal Work. But It Won't Replace Lawyers, Yet.” The New York Times. The New York Times, March 19, 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/19/technology/lawyers-artificial-intelligence.html?mcubz=0&_r=0.
Nunez, Catherine. “Artificial Intelligence and Legal Ethics: Whether AI Lawyers Can Make Ethical Decisions.” Tulane University Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property 20 (August 27, 2019).
Lohr, Steve. “A.I. Is Doing Legal Work. But It Won't Replace Lawyers, Yet.” The New York Times. The New York Times, March 19, 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/19/technology/lawyers-artificial-intelligence.html?mcubz=0&_r=0.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Angwin, Julia, Jeff Larson, Lauren Kirchner, and Surya Mattu. “Machine Bias.” ProPublica, May 23, 2016. https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing.
Donahue, Lauri. “A Primer on Using Artificial Intelligence in the Legal Profession.” Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, January 3, 2018.
Lohr, Steve. “A.I. Is Doing Legal Work. But It Won't Replace Lawyers, Yet.” The New York Times. The New York Times, March 19, 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/19/technology/lawyers-artificial-intelligence.html?mcubz=0&_r=0.
Nunez, Catherine. “Artificial Intelligence and Legal Ethics: Whether AI Lawyers Can Make Ethical Decisions.” Tulane University Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property 20 (August 27, 2019).
Remus, Dana, and Frank S. Levy. “Can Robots Be Lawyers? Computers, Lawyers, and the Practice of Law.” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2015. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2701092.
Stepka, Matthew. “Law Bots: How AI Is Reshaping the Legal Profession.” Business Law Today from ABA. Business Law Today, February 21, 2022. https://businesslawtoday.org/2022/02/how-ai-is-reshaping-legal-profession/.
Toews, Rob. “AI Will Transform The Field Of Law.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 12 Oct. 2022, https://www.forbes.com/sites/robtoews/2019/12/19/ai-will-transform-the-field-of-law/?sh=34e358a57f01.
Wiggers, Kyle. “The Pitfalls of AI That Could Predict the Outcome of Court Cases.” VentureBeat, VentureBeat, 1 Mar. 2022, https://venturebeat.com/business/the-pitfalls-of-ai-that-could-predict-the-outcome-of-court-cases

Reese Rosental Saporito 4/4/23 Reese Rosental Saporito 4/4/23

Free Speech on Twitter

By: Noah Coyle

Edited By: angie chung and isabel gortner

January 31, 2022 marked the onset of Elon Musk's twitter craze. [1] Within three months’ time, Musk had accumulated 9.2 percent of Twitter's shares, making him the company’s largest shareholder. [2] In the interim, Musk publicly questioned Twitter’s dedication to free speech, pondered the future of social media with Twitter co-founder and former CEO Jack Dorsey, and met with Twitter’s board of directors chair and its CEO to discuss taking Twitter private or starting a rival social media service. [3] These activities culminated in Twitter inviting Musk to join the company's board on April 5, 2022, an offer Musk initially accepted but later reneged on. [4] [5] A short time later, Musk made an offer to take Twitter private. [6]

Twitter initially resisted Musk’s efforts, adopting the poison pill defense — in which a company allows shareholders to buy additional shares of a company’s stock at a discount to prevent a single shareholder from having the leverage to complete a hostile takeover — to ward off a potential acquisition. [7] [8] However, at the encouragement of its largest shareholders, Twitter ultimately accepted Musk’s offer to purchase the company for $44 billion. [9] [10] Then came Musk’s turn to have misgivings about the purchase of Twitter; he attempted to terminate the deal, justifying his change of heart by alleging that Twitter had violated their agreement by refusing to comply with his requests for spambot account data.[11] Twitter then sued Musk to force the closure of the deal. [12] After a protracted dispute, and two weeks before Musk and Twitter were set to meet in court, Musk changed his mind once again and agreed to close the deal on its original terms. [13]

Since purchasing Twitter, Elon Musk has presented himself as a champion of free speech and his purchase as being a matter of principle (for example, one of his first post-acquisition tweets declared that “the bird [ie.. the embodiment Twitter] is freed”). [14] Although Musk’s free speech advocacy echoes earlier statements from him — such as the criticisms of Twitter he made as he was accumulating Twitter stock — there are a number of factors that bring the sincerity of his stance into question. One factor is that the true reason Musk purchased Twitter is that he was forced to; Musk apparently ceased his attempted withdrawal from the Twitter deal only after his lawyers informed him that a court would likely side with Twitter and force the closure of the deal. [15] Another is that Musk recently had the @elonjet Twitter account, which tracked the location of his private jet, banned, despite previously pledging (in the name of free speech) not to do so; furthermore, Musk followed this action by banning the Twitter accounts of journalists who he claimed had violated his privacy. [16]

Is Elon Musk’s free speech advocacy merely a front? If so, it would certainly be in line with the vision of free speech that has been espoused by censorship-weary (and generally right-wing) segments of the Twitterverse and that Musk has apparently co-opted, a vision that bears little resemblance to the legal principle of free speech. Freedom of speech, as codified in the First Amendment, protects the speech of private actors from governmental interference. In contrast, Musk’s vision of free speech entails protecting individuals’ ability to transmit whatever speech they want from the censorship of private actors who own the means of transmission, namely social media companies. The First Amendment does not limit private actors’ ability to retaliate against speech; therefore, Musk’s vision encompasses an absolutism that has no constitutional basis, and can be interpreted as an excuse to empower inflammatory and discriminatory speech.

It is not unreasonable to be concerned about social media censorship given the centrality social-media-based discourse holds in today’s world, nor is it unreasonable to argue that opposing social media censorship is true to the spirit of the First Amendment if not the letter of it. Yet Musk’s own actions in regard to the @elonjet Twitter account and troublesome journalists demonstrate that free speech absolutism, which has no legal basis in the United States, is untenable. Furthermore, those who argue in favor of free speech absolutism — be they edgelords eager to spew hatred without facing consequences from private actors or a pandering, self-deluding billionaire — routinely do so in bad faith. Ultimately, any constructive conversation on free speech must be rooted in a thorough understanding of the legal origins of the concept and be free of ulterior motives. The free speech discourse on Elon Musk’s Twitter violates these two criteria: approach it with caution.

Notes:

Matrine Paris, Dana Hull, and Maxwell Adler, “Elon Musk's Takeover of Twitter: Everything You Need to Know,” Yahoo! Finance (Yahoo!, November 1, 2022), https://finance.yahoo.com/elon-musk-takeover-twitter-everything-193231867.html.
Mike Isaac and Lauren Hirsch, “Elon Musk Becomes Twitter's Largest Shareholder.,” The New York Times (The New York Times, April 4, 2022), https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/04/technology/elon-musk-twitter.html.
Scott Nover, “An Annotated Timeline of Elon Musk Buying Twitter,” Quartz (Quartz, May 20, 2022), https://qz.com/2167563/an-annotated-history-of-elon-musk-buying-twitter.
Gareth Corfield, “Elon Musk to Join Twitter Board,” The Telegraph (Telegraph Media Group, April 5, 2022), https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/04/05/elon-musk-floats-idea-editing-tweets-stock-swoop/.
Shannon Bond, “Elon Musk Says He Will Not Join the Twitter Board, after All,” NPR (NPR, April 11, 2022), https://www.npr.org/2022/04/11/1091969075/elon-musk-will-not-join-twitter-board.
Scott Nover, “An Annotated Timeline.”
Scott Nover, “What Is Twitter's Poison Pill Defense against Elon Musk?,” Quartz (Quartz, April 18, 2022), https://qz.com/2155991/what-is-a-poison-pill-inside-twitters-plan-to-block-elon-musk.
Scott Nover, “An Annotated Timeline.”
Scott Nover, “An Annotated Timeline.”
Todd Spangler, “Elon Musk Clinches Deal to Buy Twitter for $44 Billion,” Variety (Variety, April 25, 2022), https://variety.com/2022/digital/news/elon-musk-buys-twitter-44-billion-1235239890/.
Clare Duffy, Brian Fung, and Rachel Metz, “Musk Tells Twitter He Wants out of Deal to Buy It. Twitter Says It Will Force Him to Close the Sale,” CNN (Cable News Network, July 9, 2022), https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/08/tech/elon-musk-twitter-deal-exit/index.html.
Richard Lawler, “Twitter Reportedly Hires the Firm That Invented the 'Poison Pill' to Sue Elon Musk,” The Verge (The Verge, July 10, 2022), https://www.theverge.com/2022/7/10/23202931/elon-musk-lawsuit-twitter-merger-delaware.
Cara Lombardo and Dana Cimilluca, “Elon Musk Proposes Closing Twitter Deal on Original Terms,” The Wall Street Journal (Dow Jones & Company, October 5, 2022), https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musk-proposes-closing-twitter-deal-on-original-terms-11664901454.
Elon Musk, “The Bird Is Freed,” Twitter (Twitter, October 28, 2022), https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1585841080431321088.
Debra Cassens Weiss, “Elon Musk's Bid to Escape Twitter Deal Could Face Skepticism in Court; 'Material Adverse Effect' at Issue,” ABA Journal (American Bar Association, July 13, 2022), https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/elon-musks-bid-to-escape-twitter-deal-over-fake-accounts-could-face-skepticism-in-delaware-court.
Oliver Darcy, “Elon Musk Bans Several Prominent Journalists from Twitter, Calling into Question His Commitment to Free Speech,” CNN (Cable News Network, December 16, 2022), https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/15/media/twitter-musk-journalists-hnk-intl/index.html.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Bond, Shannon. “Elon Musk Says He Will Not Join the Twitter Board, after All.” NPR. NPR, April 11, 2022. https://www.npr.org/2022/04/11/1091969075/elon-musk-will-not-join-twitter-board.
Corfield, Gareth. “Elon Musk to Join Twitter Board.” The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group, April 5, 2022. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/04/05/elon-musk-floats-idea-editing-tweets-stock-swoop/.
Darcy, Oliver. “Elon Musk Bans Several Prominent Journalists from Twitter, Calling into Question His Commitment to Free Speech.” CNN. Cable News Network, December 16, 2022. https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/15/media/twitter-musk-journalists-hnk-intl/index.html.
Duffy, Clare, Brian Fung, and Rachel Metz. “Musk Tells Twitter He Wants out of Deal to Buy It. Twitter Says It Will Force Him to Close the Sale.” CNN. Cable News Network, July 9, 2022. https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/08/tech/elon-musk-twitter-deal-exit/index.html.
Isaac, Mike, and Lauren Hirsch. “Elon Musk Becomes Twitter's Largest Shareholder.” The New York Times. The New York Times, April 4, 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/04/technology/elon-musk-twitter.html.
Lawler, Richard. “Twitter Reportedly Hires the Firm That Invented the 'Poison Pill' to Sue Elon Musk.” The Verge. The Verge, July 10, 2022. https://www.theverge.com/2022/7/10/23202931/elon-musk-lawsuit-twitter-merger-delaware.
Lombardo, Cara, and Dana Cimilluca. “Elon Musk Proposes Closing Twitter Deal on Original Terms.” The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, October 5, 2022. https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musk-proposes-closing-twitter-deal-on-original-terms-11664901454.
Musk, Elon. “The Bird Is Freed.” Twitter. Twitter, October 28, 2022. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1585841080431321088.
Nover, Scott. “An Annotated Timeline of Elon Musk Buying Twitter.” Quartz. Quartz, May 20, 2022. https://qz.com/2167563/an-annotated-history-of-elon-musk-buying-twitter.
Nover, Scott. “What Is Twitter's Poison Pill Defense against Elon Musk?” Quartz. Quartz, April 18, 2022. https://qz.com/2155991/what-is-a-poison-pill-inside-twitters-plan-to-block-elon-musk.
Paris, Matrine, Dana Hull, and Maxwell Adler. “Elon Musk's Takeover of Twitter: Everything You Need to Know.” Yahoo! Finance. Yahoo!, November 1, 2022. https://finance.yahoo.com/elon-musk-takeover-twitter-everything-193231867.html.
Spangler, Todd. “Elon Musk Clinches Deal to Buy Twitter for $44 Billion.” Variety. Variety, April 25, 2022. https://variety.com/2022/digital/news/elon-musk-buys-twitter-44-billion-1235239890/.
Weiss, Debra Cassens. “Elon Musk's Bid to Escape Twitter Deal Could Face Skepticism in Court; 'Material Adverse Effect' at Issue.” ABA Journal. American Bar Association, July 13, 2022. https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/elon-musks-bid-to-escape-twitter-deal-over-fake-accounts-could-face-skepticism-in-delaware-court.

Reese Rosental Saporito 4/4/23 Reese Rosental Saporito 4/4/23

Abused and Abandoned: The Invisible Plight of Women in Prison

By: Samantha Powers

Edited By: Jonah elkowitz and maggie farina

In 2003, Congress passed the “Prison Rape Elimination Act,” (PREA) a law meant to establish a “zero tolerance policy” for sexual abuse of incarcerated persons. [1] In practice, however, sexual abuse continues to be an epidemic throughout the federal prison system. Although only 6.9% of federal prisoners are female, they face disproportionate rates of sexual abuse in a system that strips them of their basic human rights. [2] These women are the victims of a federal machine of control, abuse, and silence.

Almost 20 years after PREA was passed, the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations released a scathing report entitled “Sexual Abuse of Female Inmates in Federal Prisons” exposing the ineffectiveness of the original legislation in positively influencing the Bureau of Federal Prisons, or BOP. The report revealed that over the last decade, BOP employees have sexually abused inmates in at least two-thirds of federal prisons that incarcerate women. [3] The ineffectiveness of federal prisons in implementing PREA is so widespread that those with the most power are often the culprits of the harshest abuse — at FCI Dublin, an officer formerly in charge of implementing PREA was convicted of sexually abusing female prisoners in December 2022. [3] There are many reasons for this widespread failure, including mismanagement by the BOP, a culture of silence among inmates, and a lack of accountability for officers, to name a few.

One pervasive issue with PREA is implementing it on a federal level. Prisoners who overcome the fear of retribution enough to report sexual abuse are often faced with an inefficient system of investigation designed to allow the abuse to continue. The Senate’s 2022 report found that the BOP’s Office of Internal Affairs has a backlog of 8,000 internal affairs cases, including at least hundreds of sexual abuse cases, which have not been investigated.

Within prisons, incarcerated victims of abuse must overcome a long series of hurdles in order to achieve redress. First, inmates must overcome informal sanctions for speaking out. Many stay silent for fear of facing continued abuse, being transferred farther away from family, or being placed in solitary confinement as a result of coming forward. [4] Furthermore, if a victim wants to pursue legal action, they often face formal obstacles as well. In 1996, Congress passed the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a law designed to limit “frivolous” lawsuits filed by prisoners, which are costly to the prison system as a whole. [5] If an inmate appeals through every step of the bureaucratic reporting process and their time limit runs out, they can no longer pursue legal action. These hurdles make it clear that the prison system is designed to force inmates into submission.

Another problem for the safety of inmates is a lack of accountability with officers who are accused of sexual abuse. Law 18 U.S.C. § 2243(b) makes it a felony for a BOP employee to engage in any sexual relationship with an inmate because the “inherently unequal” nature of the relationship between officer and inmate makes it impossible for the inmate to give consent. [6] Unfortunately, BOP employees continue to take advantage of this power dynamic and abuse inmates who have been stripped of their free will. In cases where inmates have the courage to report instances of abuse, investigation often comes down to a “he said, she said” battle — but with a twisted caveat; even when BOP officers confess to abusing an inmate, their testimony is considered inadmissible in circumstances where their job is on the line. Under the Supreme Court case Garrity v. New Jersey, officers can’t be prosecuted based on testimony obtained through the threat of loss of employment. This is considered to be coercion under the 5th amendment. [7] For example, the Senate report found that although officers at FCC Coleman testified on the record to sexually assaulting female inmates in graphic detail, the Office of the Inspector General at the Justice Department didn’t investigate. This demonstrates that in the case of sexual abuse investigations, even if the “he said” and the “she said” confirm an instance of abuse, officers still can’t be prosecuted.

Without advocates, support systems, or adequate mental health support, female inmates face an impossible battle to achieve justice. This isn’t an accident — the prison system is designed to strip inmates of their agency, their dignity, and their privacy. Both informally and formally, the federal prison system actively condones sexual abuse of inmates, because implicitly, it serves as another tool of control. Radical change to the culture and construction of the prison system is needed to remedy this national tragedy. Until then, inmates will continue to face abuse, and they will be powerless to stop it.