Today on AirTalk, we'll consider the apology for a controversial tweet from satire site "The Onion" -- should young subjects be off limits? We'll also speak with Sheriff Lee Baca and Sam Paredes about California gun buyback programs. Later, we'll discuss the Supreme Court review of the Voting Rights Act, look into who owns your mugshot, and weigh in on the Yahoo! telecommuting debate.
The Onion apologized for controversial comment ‘masquerading as satire,’ but should it? (POLL)
Nine-year-old lead actress Academy Award nominee Quvenzhane Wallis did not make headlines for winning an Oscar on Sunday, but she certainly has been the subject of many op-ed articles after satirical news outlet The Onion published a tweet about her that provoked outrage.
On Oscar night, @TheOnion tweeted: “Everyone else seems afraid to say it, but that Quvenzhané Wallis is kind of a c---, right? #Oscars2013.” The tweet was taken down within an hour of publication, according to Steve Hannah, The Onion’s CEO who apologized for the quip yesterday.
Regarding the tweet, Hannah wrote, “It was crude and offensive—not to mention inconsistent with The Onion’s commitment to parody and satire, however biting. No person should be subjected to such a senseless, humorless comment masquerading as satire.” Nevertheless, backlash against The Onion for the tweet has been fierce with some demanding the name of the individual writer who wrote the comment about Wallis.
Did The Onion cross a line by targeting a nine-year-old girl? Did the satirical news outlet do the right thing by apologizing? Or are critics taking the traditionally nonsensical news organization much too seriously? Whether or not the joke was funny, are there certain subjects that should be off limits in comedy?
Guest:
Alyssa Rosenberg , pop culture blogger for ThinkProgress and correspondent for TheAtlantic
LA County Sheriff Lee Baca on effectiveness of gun buyback programs
Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Cerritos, has introduced a bill to Congress outlying a means to fund gun buyback efforts nationally. Since the Newtown shooting, local enforcement agencies have spearheaded buyback programs as a means to reduce the number of guns out in the population.
Incentives include cash or other forms of compensation, such as the retail gift cards handed out to buyback participants in Los Angeles. However, the financial backing to run a buyback with staff, logistics and rewards is not always easy to come by. That’s why Rep. Sanchez has called for a 10 percent tax on any sales of weapons considered concealable, like handguns, which would funnel into these programs to make them monetarily viable.
But critics of the proposal call into question the effectiveness of buybacks in general. They are quick to point out that there hasn’t been a documented drop in gun violence after these buybacks, and that the guns returned are antiques and unlikely to fall into the hands of a criminal. Still, Los Angeles law enforcement state that the collection of 2,000 firearms in December via these buybacks is a testament to their success.
How effective are these programs? Are they making a difference? Should taxes on gun sales be used to try and curb the spreading of guns, or is that counterintuitive?
Guests:
Lee Baca , Sheriff of Los Angeles County, California, just named Sheriff of the Year by the National Sheriffs’ Association
Sam Paredes , Executive Director and Chief Lobbyist, Gun Owners of California
Supreme Court hears controversial voting rights case
It would be tough to overstate the level of interest in tomorrow's high court hearing on voting rights. The case is challenging a historic piece of legislation. In 1965, the creation of the Voting Rights Act was heralded as a landmark victory for civil rights. It outlawed discriminatory polling practices that were commonplace, particularly in the Deep South.
Now, some regions - including the petitioners of this case, Shelby County, Alabama - say the Act is for a time that has passed. They argue the federal government should no longer have oversight into the local issue of polling places or redistricting. There is a long list of stakeholders watching the case intently. It touches on politics, the law, race and history.
Is the federal government still needed to police discrimination? Are there still racist practices affecting elections? Why are political parties paying close attention to this case?
Guests:
Nancy Abudu , Staff Attorney, American Civil Liberties Union’s Voting Rights Project based in Atlanta, Georgia
Joshua Thompson , Staff Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation - described as a public interest legal organization that fights for limited government, property rights, individual rights and a balanced approach to environmental protection; Thompson filed the PLF’s friend-of-the-court brief on Shelby County v. Holder
Who owns your mug shot?
Ever since 1909 Florida has believed that any records made in a public agency should be available to the public. This has been upheld in various ways and in different legislative terms. However, ruthless web entrepreneurs have taken advantage of Florida’s open government laws by posting mugshots online.
The subjects of these photos, who may not have been convicted of a crime, could google their name and stumble upon their mugshot gone viral. The Facebook page “Florida Mug Shots” has over 59,000 likes and hosts comments on daily mugshots. Websites such as florida.arrests.org continuously update the mugshots and even allow you to browse by topics such as “celebrity,” “hotties,” “scary,” and “transgender.” To remove this post, subjects can pay various amounts to have their embarrassing snaps removed. RemoveSlander.com charges $399 and advertises, “You Have Nothing to Lose But the Humiliation.”
Now, a bill was filed in Florida on February 11 that would require these websites to take down personal information of those not convicted of a crime. However, this bill would also include media publications that disclose names and photos of alleged and convicted offenders in news articles. Should websites be allowed to post these mugshots and profit by removing the pictures? Would restricting this information be against first amendment rights? Do you think this bill would pass?
Guest:
Arthur D’Antonio III, owner of Justmugshots.com
Holden Green, San Jose-based criminal defense attorney who handles record-clearance cases
Calling all Yahoo employees back to the corporate office
You’d think a company that traffics in internet innovation would embrace telecommuting. But Yahoo’s new CEO Marissa Mayer has appeared to put the kibosh on employees phoning – or Skyping – it in. Currently, some of the Yahoo team work remotely full time, while some are occasional telecommuters. But in a recent company memo, Yahoo’s head of human resources informed its nearly 12,000 workers that starting in June, every employee will be expected to make face time full time by reporting to work at a company office five days a week.
The memo pointed to the company’s aim to make work time "more productive, efficient and fun." Studies have shown that telecommuting can be a money saver for companies, and that workers are no less productive at home using Skype, e-mail and other modern conveniences.
Employees with families appreciate having flextime options and are often willing to take a pay cut in exchange. So why the throwback attitude? Mayer has said that she wants her teams to focus more on communication and collaboration; presumably, she’s looking to the new policy to foster more watercooler conversations, bullpen sessions and overall creative spark. Mayer has a job ahead of her to turn Yahoo’s misfortunes around.
Will this method prove successful? Or will it result in a workplace full of resentful, unproductive employees? Does Yahoo risk losing valuable talent who don’t want to relocate or commute? Is it possible for a company to foster team spirit without having its workers onsite? If you’re a Yahoo telecommuter, will this decision make you reconsider?
Guests:
Beth A. Livingston, Assistant Professor, Human Resource Studies at the International and Labor Relations School, Cornell University
Rose Stanley, work-life practice leader with World at Work, a nonprofit human resources association