An area of interest for me and of particular importance to the Berkman Center is the debate on net neutrality. In essence, net neutrality supports equal access for all people, to all online content. The debate changes flavor based on numerous factors, including geography.
For example, in China, the debate takes on the tone of free speech and censorship. Can/should the government limit access to certain content? How does that decision affect the rest of the world, if at all? In the United States, the discussion sounds more economic in nature, focusing on whether or not Internet service providers should be allowed to charge customers extra for accessing certain content. For example, can a provider force customers to pay twice as much if they want to access social media? What affect will that have on the development of the Internet among certain less privileged groups? What about on the way social media are used?
The concept really crosses all platforms at the Berkman Center, from legal issues about the power of the FCC over the Internet, to the effect on journalists trying to expand online through social media, to sociological effects of limiting access to certain groups of people. So, you could say the topic interests all of us here at the Berkman Center and doesn't fit neatly into any one project.
I e-mailed Professor Jonathan Zittrain about net neutrality several weeks ago, commenting that the original model of the Internet he presented to us—a group of providers all providing propietary services, such as CompuServe and AOL—greatly resembled the discussion today regarding net neutrality. The Internet eventually moved from a jumble of propietary services to a group of networked users all using cross-platform services—but if American providers have their way, I foresee we could end up back to the paleolithic days of the Internet when only select users accessed certain services. Prof. Zittrain suggested if there was interest, we could try a discussion group among the Berkterns.
Sidenote: Zittrain is a professor of Law, Computer Science, and Public Policy—all at the same time, all at Harvard. He co-founded the Berkman Center, has been a visiting professor at Oxford and Stanford, and serves on the Internet Society's Board of Trustees. And I know few professors more down to earth and easy to like than him. Yeah. Feel inadequate yet?
Anywho, I sent out emails to our listserve asking if there would be interest in that, and got an absolutely overwhelming response (at least 10 people responded in less than an hour). After some discussion amongst ourselves, we decided that there would be plenty of interest in meeting repeatedly on this very issue. One intern even started proposing articles on this topic we can all read together, so we have the first article already picked. I'll also be reserving a conference room for us and inviting Berkman Center faculty to join us.
I was told in the beginning that this internship would be what you made of it. You could say I'm taking that to heart.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
The Online Media Legal Network
This week continues my push to get more attorneys involved with the Online Media Legal Network, a pro bono initiative that provides online journalists with free and reduced-fee legal assistance. It's been nice combining my old life and my new one in this manner, reaching out to journalism foundations and media/nonprofit attorneys to be part of the project. I've seen some strong interest from attorneys who also think media law is their calling. Hopefully a few of them will remember my name in about a year!
Aside from my various Berkman-related projects, the past week has been full — the Berkterns have been quite sociable, with a Kentucky-themed gathering on Saturday (hosted by another fellow Kentuckian Berktern, what are the odds?).
I also started a trek along the freedom trail, which over its 2.5 miles takes tourists through an array of historic sites, including Paul Revere's tomb AND his house, the old city hall, the USS Constitution and several other spots.
This is the plaque outside the Cranary Graveyard, one stop along the Freedom Trail.
I hope to continue over the next couple of weeks, if the weather will allow.
Aside from my various Berkman-related projects, the past week has been full — the Berkterns have been quite sociable, with a Kentucky-themed gathering on Saturday (hosted by another fellow Kentuckian Berktern, what are the odds?).
I also started a trek along the freedom trail, which over its 2.5 miles takes tourists through an array of historic sites, including Paul Revere's tomb AND his house, the old city hall, the USS Constitution and several other spots.
This is the plaque outside the Cranary Graveyard, one stop along the Freedom Trail.
I hope to continue over the next couple of weeks, if the weather will allow.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Kentucky needs an anti-SLAPP law!
One of the cooler parts of my internship here is hearing about modern trends in litigation, something we talk about all too rarely in law school. A particularly interesting development is the anti-SLAPP law -- SLAPP is an acronym for a "strategic lawsuit against public participation" and generally the term is used for 1) suits that have no chance of winning but which are cheaper to settle quickly than to dispute, and 2) disproportionately affect freedom of speech because the suits focus on citizen media/journalists.
For example, America Inc. doesn't like the local weekly newspaper writing about the attorney general's recent investigation of is hiring practices. So it decides to sue for defamation, knowing the paper is so bad off these days that it can't afford to defend a suit, even if it knows America Inc. has no chance of winning. So, it settles -- giving the company a lump sump to make the suit go away, and avoiding writing about the incident because it knows America Inc. could easily sue again.
Around 25-30 states are passing anti-SLAPP laws, which allow a defendant to seek relief if he/she thinks he's a victim of a SLAPP suit. If successful, he may be able to recover not only the court fees, but also a sum of money from the plaintiff. Such suits have been famous in cases such as the successful anti-SLAPP countersuit against Barbara Streisand -- she sued the California Coastal Records Project because it took a photo of her house, taken from a helicopter flying in public airspace. I mean, really Babs? Dan Snyder, owner of the Redskins, also got a taste of anti-SLAPP law when he sued a paper that published an entirely accurate listing of Snyder's very public failings as owner of the baseball team.
Bottom line for media lawyers: If you're going to work in media law defending journalists, anti-SLAPP laws are an incredibly valuable tool -- if you want to get paid (and let's face it, it does eventually come down to brass tax, like it or not) you need to know all of your fee-shifting tools. Your clients may be able to afford to pay you, but then again great cases may not have clients who can afford your hourly rate. If your heart still lies with defending citizen media but your student loans don't, this is a mechanism you can't afford to forget.
Bottom line for citizen journalists: I don't know anyone who works in journalism who isn't occasionally afraid of being sued. It's even worse if you know someone who can afford to file suit and LOSE just to make your life harder. These anti-SLAPP acts ARE a valuable tool, *if* your state passes one with any teeth. Check and see if your state has one, and if not, it's worth an editorial, a note to your legislature, or whatever you think is best to promote passage where you live.
Bottom line for Kentucky -- pass an anti-SLAPP law!
For example, America Inc. doesn't like the local weekly newspaper writing about the attorney general's recent investigation of is hiring practices. So it decides to sue for defamation, knowing the paper is so bad off these days that it can't afford to defend a suit, even if it knows America Inc. has no chance of winning. So, it settles -- giving the company a lump sump to make the suit go away, and avoiding writing about the incident because it knows America Inc. could easily sue again.
Around 25-30 states are passing anti-SLAPP laws, which allow a defendant to seek relief if he/she thinks he's a victim of a SLAPP suit. If successful, he may be able to recover not only the court fees, but also a sum of money from the plaintiff. Such suits have been famous in cases such as the successful anti-SLAPP countersuit against Barbara Streisand -- she sued the California Coastal Records Project because it took a photo of her house, taken from a helicopter flying in public airspace. I mean, really Babs? Dan Snyder, owner of the Redskins, also got a taste of anti-SLAPP law when he sued a paper that published an entirely accurate listing of Snyder's very public failings as owner of the baseball team.
Bottom line for media lawyers: If you're going to work in media law defending journalists, anti-SLAPP laws are an incredibly valuable tool -- if you want to get paid (and let's face it, it does eventually come down to brass tax, like it or not) you need to know all of your fee-shifting tools. Your clients may be able to afford to pay you, but then again great cases may not have clients who can afford your hourly rate. If your heart still lies with defending citizen media but your student loans don't, this is a mechanism you can't afford to forget.
Bottom line for citizen journalists: I don't know anyone who works in journalism who isn't occasionally afraid of being sued. It's even worse if you know someone who can afford to file suit and LOSE just to make your life harder. These anti-SLAPP acts ARE a valuable tool, *if* your state passes one with any teeth. Check and see if your state has one, and if not, it's worth an editorial, a note to your legislature, or whatever you think is best to promote passage where you live.
Bottom line for Kentucky -- pass an anti-SLAPP law!
Thursday, June 16, 2011
I say the more open, the better off we all are
Today I've been working primarily on the legal guide, focusing on adding summations of open records/open meetings laws to states that we are currently missing. So far, I have done summations for Arizona (not posted) and am working on one for Tennessee.
This project has been especially interesting for me now, because before I only knew public records law based on what I had been told by colleagues or what I'd heard at journalism conferences. I had no idea how to look up a public records statute and even if I did, I'm not sure I would have felt comfortable figuring out what it said. Now I'm seeing these laws through the lens of a law student, looking at what the statute clearly leaves out and to which agencies its directives applies -- is the statutory remedy permissive (e.g., the court may award attorney's fees) or is it mandatory (e.g., the court shall award attorney's fees?) Does it provide a procedure for applying, and if so does it require a writing? Does it define what a writing can be? Does it provide a response time for open records requests, or does it only say the response time must be -- the lawyer's favorite -- "reasonable"?
Little details like these give a clearer picture of what is "open," and what is still hazy. You certainly get an interesting vibe from a state looking at what information it considers "public." For example, does the state have a broad list of exemptions that may or may not have clear public policy explanations (ahem, Tennessee), or does it list few exemptions, with a clear slant toward openness? Admittedly my bias from years working in journalism is to have an open government: the more access, the easier it is to find kickbacks. It's hard to fight that instinct after years of working to give the public more information about the workings of its government.
There are certainly well-educated, reasoned minds who would differ. In particular, I'm thinking of the author of Stealth Democracy, who hypothesizes that America would altogether be happier (and probably run smoother) with much less public access. The author points out that the court system, the branch of government we tend to see as more mystic and, ironically, the least open, as being the one with the highest ratings in public opinion polls.
I say ironically only because the court system and all its inner workings is probably more open than any other contemporary court, and it certainly was more open than any court system at the time of our nation's founding. Think back to the times of English courts which disallowed a defense for treason, of secret tribunals where the accused had no right to see the evidence against him, the same court system which disallowed anyone with an economic interest in the case to testify. Surely it seems like an improvement?
Congress, on the other hand, with such constant media attention, is seen as the least effective branch of government and the one with strongest negative responses in opinion polls. This negativity leads to frustration and indecisiveness amongst voters, with many voters feeling constantly disenchanted with the people whom they elected and becoming less involved in elections as a result. If we want democracy to keep running, we should scale back on public access instead of putting everything on the table.
The author makes several important points which would be impossible to summarize here (and admittedly you'd only be reading through my bias) so if you're interested in the effect of open records and public access to information, I'd recommend reading this book to see another viewpoint.
As for me, I'll stick with my strong-willed —perhaps even naive— belief that the more information a democratic public has, the better.
This project has been especially interesting for me now, because before I only knew public records law based on what I had been told by colleagues or what I'd heard at journalism conferences. I had no idea how to look up a public records statute and even if I did, I'm not sure I would have felt comfortable figuring out what it said. Now I'm seeing these laws through the lens of a law student, looking at what the statute clearly leaves out and to which agencies its directives applies -- is the statutory remedy permissive (e.g., the court may award attorney's fees) or is it mandatory (e.g., the court shall award attorney's fees?) Does it provide a procedure for applying, and if so does it require a writing? Does it define what a writing can be? Does it provide a response time for open records requests, or does it only say the response time must be -- the lawyer's favorite -- "reasonable"?
Little details like these give a clearer picture of what is "open," and what is still hazy. You certainly get an interesting vibe from a state looking at what information it considers "public." For example, does the state have a broad list of exemptions that may or may not have clear public policy explanations (ahem, Tennessee), or does it list few exemptions, with a clear slant toward openness? Admittedly my bias from years working in journalism is to have an open government: the more access, the easier it is to find kickbacks. It's hard to fight that instinct after years of working to give the public more information about the workings of its government.
There are certainly well-educated, reasoned minds who would differ. In particular, I'm thinking of the author of Stealth Democracy, who hypothesizes that America would altogether be happier (and probably run smoother) with much less public access. The author points out that the court system, the branch of government we tend to see as more mystic and, ironically, the least open, as being the one with the highest ratings in public opinion polls.
I say ironically only because the court system and all its inner workings is probably more open than any other contemporary court, and it certainly was more open than any court system at the time of our nation's founding. Think back to the times of English courts which disallowed a defense for treason, of secret tribunals where the accused had no right to see the evidence against him, the same court system which disallowed anyone with an economic interest in the case to testify. Surely it seems like an improvement?
Congress, on the other hand, with such constant media attention, is seen as the least effective branch of government and the one with strongest negative responses in opinion polls. This negativity leads to frustration and indecisiveness amongst voters, with many voters feeling constantly disenchanted with the people whom they elected and becoming less involved in elections as a result. If we want democracy to keep running, we should scale back on public access instead of putting everything on the table.
The author makes several important points which would be impossible to summarize here (and admittedly you'd only be reading through my bias) so if you're interested in the effect of open records and public access to information, I'd recommend reading this book to see another viewpoint.
As for me, I'll stick with my strong-willed —perhaps even naive— belief that the more information a democratic public has, the better.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
The perils of big city travel
This past Friday the Berkman Center hosted a hyperpublic symposium on designing privacy in public spaces online. Urs Gasser opened the conference with an excellent example: Google street view, which allows users looking for directions to wander the streets like a pedestrian would. Google was sued over its street view application in Switzerland right after it went online, and the court ordered that Google couldn't take its street view cameras anywhere a normal pedestrian wouldn't go, nor could it show any faces. In essence, we have an application available online to the public that still maintains some private spaces. Speakers at the symposium included computer scientists, ethnographers, architects, historians, artists and legal scholars, all of whom talked about how they define privacy in their respective fields and how they define spaces for that in what they produce.
After the syposium, the interns went out to the Cheers Pub and did a little touring around downtown Boston. The Cheers pub was nice, though super touristy (what do you expect, really?) and we also hit another small bar called the Mallilave in the North End of Boston. This Saturday, I went to the Union Oyster House in downtown Boston with one of the Berkman Center interns. It bills itself as the oldest restaurant in the U.S., and was a favorite of JFK. If you're ever in Boston and you like seafood, I'd recommend it. All in all, the weekend was a good time and I got to see some nice attractions in the city.
However, after being crammed on the subway with hundreds of people -- by that I mean each train was standing room only and everyone had to grab onto metal rails to keep from falling -- I've gotten sick. It started Sunday with my usual symptoms, but by Monday I decided I wouldn't let it beat me. I was determined to make it to the Berkman Center and all in all had a productive day. I got several bits of work done and met up for lunch with Trey Grayson, former Secretary of State and new director of the Institute of Politics at the Kennedy Center. After work hours I met with an HLS professor (Stephen Shay) to talk about job hunting advice, and in the end felt pretty good about my plan for the coming year.
And as I walked home, the Ick started. It got worse the closer I got to Somerville, and eventually I realized that maybe working today wasn't a good call.
I've been at home for two days now, and hope to venture back to the land of the living Thursday.
But my advice for any travelers not used to mass transit -- bring along hand sanitizer. Seriously.
After the syposium, the interns went out to the Cheers Pub and did a little touring around downtown Boston. The Cheers pub was nice, though super touristy (what do you expect, really?) and we also hit another small bar called the Mallilave in the North End of Boston. This Saturday, I went to the Union Oyster House in downtown Boston with one of the Berkman Center interns. It bills itself as the oldest restaurant in the U.S., and was a favorite of JFK. If you're ever in Boston and you like seafood, I'd recommend it. All in all, the weekend was a good time and I got to see some nice attractions in the city.
However, after being crammed on the subway with hundreds of people -- by that I mean each train was standing room only and everyone had to grab onto metal rails to keep from falling -- I've gotten sick. It started Sunday with my usual symptoms, but by Monday I decided I wouldn't let it beat me. I was determined to make it to the Berkman Center and all in all had a productive day. I got several bits of work done and met up for lunch with Trey Grayson, former Secretary of State and new director of the Institute of Politics at the Kennedy Center. After work hours I met with an HLS professor (Stephen Shay) to talk about job hunting advice, and in the end felt pretty good about my plan for the coming year.
And as I walked home, the Ick started. It got worse the closer I got to Somerville, and eventually I realized that maybe working today wasn't a good call.
I've been at home for two days now, and hope to venture back to the land of the living Thursday.
But my advice for any travelers not used to mass transit -- bring along hand sanitizer. Seriously.
Friday, June 10, 2011
Fun and awkward
Prof. Zittrain just coined a phrase at the Hyperpublic symposium -- fawkward.
If it's fun yet awkward, it's indeed fawkward.
Spread the word.
If it's fun yet awkward, it's indeed fawkward.
Spread the word.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Glik v. Cuniffe
Yesterday the Cyberlaw Clinic students (which is run primarily for Harvard Law students at the Berkman Center) and the Citizen Media Law Project interns went to the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston to hear oral arguments on the case of Glik v. Cunniffe, a case on which the project filed an amicus brief, which the court rejected.
The Glik case is a §1983 action. Such an action is a lawsuit provided for by federal law for violations of constitutional rights. Here, the suit was filed by a man who was arrested in the Boston Commons area after using his cell phone camera to video tape an arrest. The officers charged him with violations of the Massachusetts wiretapping statute, which prohibits recording anyone's conversations in secrecy. The charges were later dropped for lack of probable cause and the man who was arrested sued for violations of his fourth (which prevents unreasonable search and seizure) and first amendment rights.
This appeal of the trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss the case for qualified immunity. Basically, the police officers wanted the case thrown out because as police officers acting as any reasonable police officer would while performing his or her duties in good faith, they are in fact entitled to immunity and the case would be thrown out. But, the trial court found that this actions weren't clearly reasonable. A reasonable officer might not think this arrest was constitutional. So the case was allowed to proceed.
The attorney representing the police made the point that the officers didn't know he was recording until after he had already started, and that the statute doesn't allow for recording without knowledge. After much debate back and forth, one judge made an excellent point -- what would the police have done if this were a member of the press? Say a journalist and a single camerama began filming and the police didn't hear them until they were already underway. Would they have thought this a violation of the wiretapping statute? I think most of us would hope that any journalist who spotted what they believed to be police abuse would stop and get it on camera, along with an explanation from the officers.
I think the judge brings up an excellent point. This wiretapping statute doesn't clearly make any distinction for the purpose behind the recording, or the person doing the recording. If this were a journalist recording a public event in a public place, I hardly think the Boston police would have arrested the reporter on camera. But this man, recording what he said at the time was a violent arrest (he told the cops, "I saw you punch him") was made a target.
Here is a link to the blog entry on the oral argument, written by my colleague.
Update:
Check this link to my supervisor, Jeff Hermes, being interviewed on this case.
The Glik case is a §1983 action. Such an action is a lawsuit provided for by federal law for violations of constitutional rights. Here, the suit was filed by a man who was arrested in the Boston Commons area after using his cell phone camera to video tape an arrest. The officers charged him with violations of the Massachusetts wiretapping statute, which prohibits recording anyone's conversations in secrecy. The charges were later dropped for lack of probable cause and the man who was arrested sued for violations of his fourth (which prevents unreasonable search and seizure) and first amendment rights.
This appeal of the trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss the case for qualified immunity. Basically, the police officers wanted the case thrown out because as police officers acting as any reasonable police officer would while performing his or her duties in good faith, they are in fact entitled to immunity and the case would be thrown out. But, the trial court found that this actions weren't clearly reasonable. A reasonable officer might not think this arrest was constitutional. So the case was allowed to proceed.
The attorney representing the police made the point that the officers didn't know he was recording until after he had already started, and that the statute doesn't allow for recording without knowledge. After much debate back and forth, one judge made an excellent point -- what would the police have done if this were a member of the press? Say a journalist and a single camerama began filming and the police didn't hear them until they were already underway. Would they have thought this a violation of the wiretapping statute? I think most of us would hope that any journalist who spotted what they believed to be police abuse would stop and get it on camera, along with an explanation from the officers.
I think the judge brings up an excellent point. This wiretapping statute doesn't clearly make any distinction for the purpose behind the recording, or the person doing the recording. If this were a journalist recording a public event in a public place, I hardly think the Boston police would have arrested the reporter on camera. But this man, recording what he said at the time was a violent arrest (he told the cops, "I saw you punch him") was made a target.
Here is a link to the blog entry on the oral argument, written by my colleague.
Update:
Check this link to my supervisor, Jeff Hermes, being interviewed on this case.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
The H bomb
Today, the executive director of the Berkman Center told a room full of interns that based on numbers alone -- people applying versus people accepted -- it's harder to get into a Berkman Center internship then it is to get into Harvard Law.
I think he was only halfway joking.
There's a very diverse bunch here, all of them talented, all of them with unique backgrounds that they'll bring to the range of projects at the center. If I hadn't felt honored to be here before (and I did) I certainly would feel that way now.
Opportunities at the Center
Every Tuesday the Center hosts a lunch with different speakers on Internet-related topics, and if the interns rsvp earlier enough they can join those. I was too late this time, but I will certainly try as often as I can to be part of these.
Interns are also encouraged to make contacts with staff, faculty and fellows with their respective interests. In fact, we were all told specifically that this experience would be what we made it. What contacts we made, who we reached out to, that would all be up to us. I think the practice I've had trying to make contacts over the past semester will come in handy as I try to get in touch with anyone I can affiliated with the center.
One comment in particular struck me, coming from the internship director to a few students hovering in the conference room. One Harvard Law student made a saracastic remark that as soon as he told people he was an HLS student, everyone assumed he was stuck up -- a few students jokingly called that "dropping the H bomb."
"Dropping the H bomb doesn't do much at Berkman." said the director, unimpressed.
"Because nearly everyone around here is from Harvard?" I asked.
Well, that's true, but really it's because we know there's so much to offer from all kinds of schools, she said. There's value in having different groups here and plenty of talented people out there outside of HLS.
How refreshingly novel. I can tell you, after working on applications for judicial clerkships, this is definitely not the perspective to which I am accustomed.
The Citizen Media Law Project
I soon met my fellow interns on the project. There are three of us, two Harvard Law students and myself. Because of my background in journalism, I will be working on outreach for the Online Legal Media Network, a network of pro bono attorneys that the project connects with online journalists in need of legal assistance. I'll be trying to get this service more publicity. I really couldn't be happier about the work for which I was selected.
We'll also be writing weekly blog entries about media law issues, updating the legal threats database -- a compilation of litigation and other legal "threats" such as cease and desist letters or advanced threats of prosecution -- and the legal guide, which breaks down state and federal law on a variety of media law topics.
Additionally, I hope to write a white paper while I'm here that could be published on the project's web site. Finally, as part of the Center's ongoing attempt to explain its goals and its internship program, all of us will also create a digital piece that explains what interning at the Berkman Center is like. There are few guidelines for this, so long as it answers some question future applicants might have about the center.
So, if any interested journalists or media law savvy readers out there know of a good topic for either a legal research paper or even just a blog entry, I would be happy to hear it!
I think he was only halfway joking.
There's a very diverse bunch here, all of them talented, all of them with unique backgrounds that they'll bring to the range of projects at the center. If I hadn't felt honored to be here before (and I did) I certainly would feel that way now.
Opportunities at the Center
Every Tuesday the Center hosts a lunch with different speakers on Internet-related topics, and if the interns rsvp earlier enough they can join those. I was too late this time, but I will certainly try as often as I can to be part of these.
Interns are also encouraged to make contacts with staff, faculty and fellows with their respective interests. In fact, we were all told specifically that this experience would be what we made it. What contacts we made, who we reached out to, that would all be up to us. I think the practice I've had trying to make contacts over the past semester will come in handy as I try to get in touch with anyone I can affiliated with the center.
One comment in particular struck me, coming from the internship director to a few students hovering in the conference room. One Harvard Law student made a saracastic remark that as soon as he told people he was an HLS student, everyone assumed he was stuck up -- a few students jokingly called that "dropping the H bomb."
"Dropping the H bomb doesn't do much at Berkman." said the director, unimpressed.
"Because nearly everyone around here is from Harvard?" I asked.
Well, that's true, but really it's because we know there's so much to offer from all kinds of schools, she said. There's value in having different groups here and plenty of talented people out there outside of HLS.
How refreshingly novel. I can tell you, after working on applications for judicial clerkships, this is definitely not the perspective to which I am accustomed.
The Citizen Media Law Project
I soon met my fellow interns on the project. There are three of us, two Harvard Law students and myself. Because of my background in journalism, I will be working on outreach for the Online Legal Media Network, a network of pro bono attorneys that the project connects with online journalists in need of legal assistance. I'll be trying to get this service more publicity. I really couldn't be happier about the work for which I was selected.
We'll also be writing weekly blog entries about media law issues, updating the legal threats database -- a compilation of litigation and other legal "threats" such as cease and desist letters or advanced threats of prosecution -- and the legal guide, which breaks down state and federal law on a variety of media law topics.
Additionally, I hope to write a white paper while I'm here that could be published on the project's web site. Finally, as part of the Center's ongoing attempt to explain its goals and its internship program, all of us will also create a digital piece that explains what interning at the Berkman Center is like. There are few guidelines for this, so long as it answers some question future applicants might have about the center.
So, if any interested journalists or media law savvy readers out there know of a good topic for either a legal research paper or even just a blog entry, I would be happy to hear it!
Sunday, June 5, 2011
This is it!
Tomorrow is my first day at the Berkman Center -- I am excited and anxious, not sure what to expect but I just know I will love it. I'll report back later!
Me on the Charles River
The Charles River separates Cambridge from Boston -- it's a popular spot, with lots of people kayaking, sailing, canoeing or just lying by it's bright blue water during the summertime.
Something about being near water always makes a trip feel more "vacation-y," though I suspect part of that is because Lexington has no body of water nearby. I went to the river today as part of the River Festival, which is in it's 32nd year. And interestingly enough, my roommate had never heard of it.
That tells you something about how much a city has to offer, if there's an annual festival with thousands in attendance and a resident of the area has never heard of it!
Saturday, June 4, 2011
How to appease the mass transit monster
The scariest part -- so far, that is -- of moving to such a large city from Kentucky is the mass transit monster.
When I say that, I imagine a large, red furry monster with big horns, wearing a Red Sox cap and screaming at me in a strange accent, littering wherever he walks with tickets and Charlie cards, with an annoying habit of perpetual lateness and a refusal to admit that causes a problem for anybody.
Here's why I imagined the monster was so scary:
1. I have never used mass transit because I'm from Kentucky, a state which is very low on forms of mass transit because there is little need. As far as I knew everyone over the age of 16 drove everywhere in their own cars 100% of the time.
2. There are thousands of people using the transit every day so a newcomer probably will not be given much time or patience to learn said mass transit. This is very offputting to someone who was taught to be kind to strangers until given a reason otherwise, and especially hard when you are new and feel particularily vulnerable, so feel especially timid.
3. There are several, sometimes overlapping forms of mass transit. There's a bus route, a subway route, a commuter rail, taxi cabs, flying carpets and catapults if you're in the right part of the city. Apparently having one reliable method was simply too easy to learn, so in order to keep things fun they invented more methods to keep the guessing game going. I highly suspect even native Bostonians have no idea how to use more than two methods and may just pretend they do if anyone asks.
4. Since you have no idea how to get anywhere, you will constantly have to resort back to mass transit options to figure out how to get around the city. That involves carefully identifying where to go, what system to use to get there and how to use it, how long it will take you, and what your emergency escape route is if you get lost (see number 5, below).
And, finally, but not least scary:
5. If you make a mistake, you will have zero idea where you've ended up, and perhaps less of an idea how to get back to wherever it was you were headed in the first place, if you can remember that after surviving the panic from getting lost in a city like Boston.
Here's how I did on my first venture. (If I don't come back in ten minutes, send a search-and-rescue crew. A large one.)
So. Once again, my gracious roommate decided to show me how one uses the Red Line, a simpler subway system that is apparently quite reliable and goes through Cambridge to downtown Boston.
It's about a 15 minute walk to the Harvard Square red line station, and since it's a lovely walk through the Yard I so far don't mind that at all. Things got a bumpy start though when I couldn't add money to my card, and the subway agent was very unexcited that anyone was actually going to ask him a question today. We took the subway to the Green Line, which meets the Red Line in downtown Boston and then -- because the subway wasn't fun enough -- splits into four lines all going different directions.
Lovely. So, I have (sorta) figured out how to use this Red Line, and haled my first taxi cab. Though somehow, I was expected to tell him how to get where I wanted to go, which says quite a lot when the person who drives the city every day for a living hasn't figured it out enough to take me home.
But, Green Line crazy splitting aside, it wasn't that bad. The Red Line seems fairly straight forward and at least there are taxi cabs all over the city if you do get completely and totally lost. Just keep cash on you (and having some strong nerves might be a good thing, too).
I will eventually be a "big city" traveler -- I will rub the belly of the mass transit monster. Just you wait, Boston.
When I say that, I imagine a large, red furry monster with big horns, wearing a Red Sox cap and screaming at me in a strange accent, littering wherever he walks with tickets and Charlie cards, with an annoying habit of perpetual lateness and a refusal to admit that causes a problem for anybody.
Here's why I imagined the monster was so scary:
1. I have never used mass transit because I'm from Kentucky, a state which is very low on forms of mass transit because there is little need. As far as I knew everyone over the age of 16 drove everywhere in their own cars 100% of the time.
2. There are thousands of people using the transit every day so a newcomer probably will not be given much time or patience to learn said mass transit. This is very offputting to someone who was taught to be kind to strangers until given a reason otherwise, and especially hard when you are new and feel particularily vulnerable, so feel especially timid.
3. There are several, sometimes overlapping forms of mass transit. There's a bus route, a subway route, a commuter rail, taxi cabs, flying carpets and catapults if you're in the right part of the city. Apparently having one reliable method was simply too easy to learn, so in order to keep things fun they invented more methods to keep the guessing game going. I highly suspect even native Bostonians have no idea how to use more than two methods and may just pretend they do if anyone asks.
4. Since you have no idea how to get anywhere, you will constantly have to resort back to mass transit options to figure out how to get around the city. That involves carefully identifying where to go, what system to use to get there and how to use it, how long it will take you, and what your emergency escape route is if you get lost (see number 5, below).
And, finally, but not least scary:
5. If you make a mistake, you will have zero idea where you've ended up, and perhaps less of an idea how to get back to wherever it was you were headed in the first place, if you can remember that after surviving the panic from getting lost in a city like Boston.
Here's how I did on my first venture. (If I don't come back in ten minutes, send a search-and-rescue crew. A large one.)
So. Once again, my gracious roommate decided to show me how one uses the Red Line, a simpler subway system that is apparently quite reliable and goes through Cambridge to downtown Boston.
It's about a 15 minute walk to the Harvard Square red line station, and since it's a lovely walk through the Yard I so far don't mind that at all. Things got a bumpy start though when I couldn't add money to my card, and the subway agent was very unexcited that anyone was actually going to ask him a question today. We took the subway to the Green Line, which meets the Red Line in downtown Boston and then -- because the subway wasn't fun enough -- splits into four lines all going different directions.
Lovely. So, I have (sorta) figured out how to use this Red Line, and haled my first taxi cab. Though somehow, I was expected to tell him how to get where I wanted to go, which says quite a lot when the person who drives the city every day for a living hasn't figured it out enough to take me home.
But, Green Line crazy splitting aside, it wasn't that bad. The Red Line seems fairly straight forward and at least there are taxi cabs all over the city if you do get completely and totally lost. Just keep cash on you (and having some strong nerves might be a good thing, too).
I will eventually be a "big city" traveler -- I will rub the belly of the mass transit monster. Just you wait, Boston.
Friday, June 3, 2011
What to do when you're on Harvard Square
After arriving at 2 p.m. in the Logan International airport, my very gracious roommates Mika and Ilana took me back to Somerville, where I'll be living for the summer. As soon as they pulled up, I was quickly greeted with a thoroughly frustrated, overweight, tan-skinned man honking his horn, who immediately got out and started yelling in some weird accent about how we shouldn't be in this lane.
Maybe that's how they say "welcome" here in Boston.
Anywho, it's about 73 degrees and sunny with a constant breeze --- terrible conditions, I tell you. I quickly got a guided tour of the area from my roommates, showing me how to get to the Berkman Center on Everett Street and also a few touristy things. For example:
This building looks so breathtaking that it's hard to describe, especially when you combine this beautiful stained-glass window with the size of the tower that greets you from the front:
Freshmen apparently eat lunch inside this building, in a very Hogwarts-esque atmosphere. If anything speaks for all you probably thought Harvard would be, it's something like this structure -- head-spinning size and intricacy, decadent but somber to the point of intimidating, yet so magnificent you just have to stare at it.
After a walk through Harvard Yard we went to the Square, where I ran into Click and Clack from Car Talk and begged them for an autograph and photo to send to Terry.
They had to make fun of me for actually knowing who they were, but still agreed to not only sign him an autograph, but take a photo, too.
As I slowly try to settle into my new, temporary home, I still can't fight this surreal feeling at the pit of my stomach that someone like me isn't supposed to be in a place like this. Can a Kentucky girl from Cardinal Valley -- not exactly upper class living, let's just admit it -- fit in ok in a place like this? I still haven't figured out if that's possible but my roommates did make a soothing point. Nearly EVERYONE who comes to Harvard wonders that same question. Did the admissions office make a mistake? Did they really want me to come here?
Yes. They did. And if so, then you WILL fit in here, like everyone else. And truth is, if you didn't get that feeling, that "Surely not. You can't mean me?" feeling, then you probably will be one of those people no one likes anyway, so who cares what they think?
I hope they are right. I'm wearing my UK gear regardless, and if you hear my Kentucky accent, so be it. I'm here to be part of an awesome media law project at the Berkman Center and learn all I possibly can, so somehow or another I'll find my vein away from home.
Maybe that's how they say "welcome" here in Boston.
Anywho, it's about 73 degrees and sunny with a constant breeze --- terrible conditions, I tell you. I quickly got a guided tour of the area from my roommates, showing me how to get to the Berkman Center on Everett Street and also a few touristy things. For example:
This building looks so breathtaking that it's hard to describe, especially when you combine this beautiful stained-glass window with the size of the tower that greets you from the front:
Freshmen apparently eat lunch inside this building, in a very Hogwarts-esque atmosphere. If anything speaks for all you probably thought Harvard would be, it's something like this structure -- head-spinning size and intricacy, decadent but somber to the point of intimidating, yet so magnificent you just have to stare at it.
After a walk through Harvard Yard we went to the Square, where I ran into Click and Clack from Car Talk and begged them for an autograph and photo to send to Terry.
They had to make fun of me for actually knowing who they were, but still agreed to not only sign him an autograph, but take a photo, too.
As I slowly try to settle into my new, temporary home, I still can't fight this surreal feeling at the pit of my stomach that someone like me isn't supposed to be in a place like this. Can a Kentucky girl from Cardinal Valley -- not exactly upper class living, let's just admit it -- fit in ok in a place like this? I still haven't figured out if that's possible but my roommates did make a soothing point. Nearly EVERYONE who comes to Harvard wonders that same question. Did the admissions office make a mistake? Did they really want me to come here?
Yes. They did. And if so, then you WILL fit in here, like everyone else. And truth is, if you didn't get that feeling, that "Surely not. You can't mean me?" feeling, then you probably will be one of those people no one likes anyway, so who cares what they think?
I hope they are right. I'm wearing my UK gear regardless, and if you hear my Kentucky accent, so be it. I'm here to be part of an awesome media law project at the Berkman Center and learn all I possibly can, so somehow or another I'll find my vein away from home.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
First night in Cambridge
After a long journey (which involved a sleepless night, a tearful goodbye at the airport in Lexington at 5 a.m., a layover in Charlotte, NC, and a screaming infant on the way to Boston) I have arrived in Cambridge and have slowly begun to settle into my apartment in Somerville.
Because I have been up since 4 a.m. and it is now almost 11, I apologize for needing to keep this short. But, first thing's first.
Yes, that's me, rubbing the foot of the statute of John Harvard, while wearing my UK Law gear.
Because I have been up since 4 a.m. and it is now almost 11, I apologize for needing to keep this short. But, first thing's first.
Yes, that's me, rubbing the foot of the statute of John Harvard, while wearing my UK Law gear.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
T-minus 24 hours
You know that feeling in the pit of your stomach as you're walking up the steps of the law school building before the biggest exam of your semester?
Yeah, it feels like that -- multiplied by 3.
I could use a hug. Did I mention I hate flying?
I. Despise. Flying.
I suspect the person in the seat next to me will not be cool with me gripping the armrests in the seat. I hopefully won't see them again, so if I whimper a little, just judge away, random stranger.
Either way, this time tomorrow, I'll be in Cambridge.
Yeah, it feels like that -- multiplied by 3.
I could use a hug. Did I mention I hate flying?
I. Despise. Flying.
I suspect the person in the seat next to me will not be cool with me gripping the armrests in the seat. I hopefully won't see them again, so if I whimper a little, just judge away, random stranger.
Either way, this time tomorrow, I'll be in Cambridge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)