Love One Another

National Loving Day could not have come at a better time this year. With the nation fatigued by a global pandemic and suffering from the effects of racial injustice, our country needs a time to heal. National Loving Day, celebrated each June 12, commemorates the anniversary of the landmark 1967 United States Supreme Court decision Loving v. Virginia. In that case, the Court struck down Virginia statutes that criminalized and otherwise prevented marriages between persons solely on the basis of race. The Court held:

Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man', fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967) (Case citations omitted).

In Loving v. Virginia, Virginia residents Mildred Jeter and Richard P. Loving were legally married in the District of Columbia. Shortly after returning to Virginia, the Lovings were charged with violating the state’s ban on interracial marriage. The couple pleaded guilty, and their jail sentence was suspended on the condition that they leave Virginia and not return together for 25 years. The Lovings filed an action in the District of Columbia to vacate the judgment. Eventually, the case made its way to the United States Supreme Court, whose decision recognized the fundamental right to marry regardless of race. The Loving decision became instrumental in another landmark case, Obergefell v. Hodges, which guaranteed same-sex couples the same right to marry as every other couple and recognized the validity of those marriages already existing.

Loving Day began initially as a graduate thesis project at Parsons School of Design in New York City after its founder, he himself a person of interracial and intercultural heritage, accidentally discovered the Loving case. Loving Day has since expanded into a global network of Loving Day celebrations seeking to fight racial prejudice through education, build a multicultural community, and promote multicultural awareness. So on this National Loving Day 2020, let’s keep that mission alive and learn to respect and love one another.

Cheers!

Pop a cork! No, it’s not New Year’s Day already, but who would know as all of the days seem to run together, don’t they? Tomorrow, June 6, is National Bubbly Day, a day set aside on the first Saturday of June to celebrate all there is to love about that glass of effervescent goodness. Bubbly can come in the form of sparkling wine from the United States, Prosecco from Italy, Sekt from Germany and Austria, or Cava from Spain. Today, however, we are going to focus on the self-styled king of sparklers, Champagne from France.

History

Wine making can trace its roots back to Mesopotamia to a period as early as 6000 - 4000 B.C.E. While ancient Egyptians were the first to document wine making processes, the interest in wine making soon spread to Greece and throughout Europe. In France, wine making dates back to the earliest days of Christianity where it was used in the celebration of the Eucharist. Since that time, the methods of pruning vines; improved techniques with respect to irrigation, fertilization, and harvesting; and a clearer understanding of how the terroir, or complete natural environment or location of the vines, affects the quality of the grape, and in the end, the wine itself.

The hallmark of champagne or what distinguishes it from other wines is the effervescence. When the sugar found in the grapes is combined with yeast, fermentation occurs, whereby the yeast breaks down the sugars in the grapes and converts it to alcohol and carbon dioxide. In the making of champagne, however, the wine is fermented a second time - this time in the bottle. The carbon dioxide becomes trapped, thus creating the effervescence or bubbles for which champagne is known. (Another popular method of fermentation known as the Charmat method differs from the méthode champenoise in that the wine is fermented in pressurized steel tanks.) For more information about the making of champagne, its history, and its terroir and appellation, visit the website of Comité Champagne.

Regulations

The production and sale of sparkling wines, especially champagne is regulated here in the United States as well as overseas in France. Let’s have a brief look at some of the important rules governing the creation of this luscious libation.

France

France, not surprisingly, treats its food and wine very seriously. Following the demands of wine-growing associations throughout France, the principles of Appellation of Controlled Origin (AOC) and the Institut National des Appellations d’Origine (INAO) were created in July 1935. (The INAO has since been renamed the Institut National de l’Origine et de la Qualité.) On June 29, 1936, champagne was declared an AOC.

With this designation comes responsibility and regulation. Specifically for the Champagne AOC, there are regulations enumerating approved grape varieties; citing specific methods of pruning; establishing the maximum permitted yields per hectare, the maximum permitted press yield, and minimum potential alcohol content of newly harvested grapes; secondary fermentation in the bottle, and minimum periods of maturation. Thus, for a wine to rightly be designated as champagne, it must adhere to these specific rules and regulations and come from grapes traditionally grown in the Champagne region of northeastern France. (Apparently, though, there is a loophole that permits sparkling wines from California to be called California Champagne.)

To ensure the continued quality of wines with the Champagne AOC and to protect consumers from misleading claims, the Comité Champagne or Comité Interprofessionel du Vin de Champagne (CIVC), a professional organization of wine growers, reports any misuse of the champagne name and prosecutes any party that misappropriates the reputation that the wine growers in the Champagne region worked so hard to establish. Their authority to prosecute these cases is authorized by Article 13 of the Revised Law of 12 April 1941 (France). The CVIC is active in ensuring that consumers are not duped by products claiming to be champagne. Its website cites significant victories it has achieved in combating counterfeiting and misuse.

United States

In the United States , regulations governing of “champagne” can be found in several sections of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Most of the regulations involving champagne address designations and labeling.

27 C.F.R. § 4.21 (2019) - This section addresses the standards of identity for several classes and types of wine. Champagne is a Class 2 , sparkling grape wine, which “derives its effervescence from the secondary fermentation of the wine within glass containers of not greater than one gallon capacity, and which possesses the taste, aroma, and other characteristics attributed to champagne as made in the champagne district of France.” Wines not conforming to the “champagne” standard may, in addition to sparkling wine, be designated as “Champagne style” or “Champagne type.” Furthermore, 27 C.F.R. § 4.21(b)(3)(ii) (2019) discusses the labeling of sparkling wines that do not conform to the champagne standard or use the “charmat method” instead.

27 C.F.R. § 4.34 (2019) - This section further addresses the class and type of wine and indicates that in the case of champagne, the type designation may appear in lieu of the class designation of sparkling wine.

27 C.F.R. § 4.24 (2019) - Geography also plays an important role in wine regulations. This particular section of the CFR regulates generic, semi-generic, and non-generic designations of geographic significance. Champagne, like Burgundy and Sherry, is an example of a semi-generic name that is also a type designation for a grape wine. The semi-generic designation is generally used for wines that have an origin that differs from that which the name indicates. For instance, using the example we have given above, wines designated as Champagne, Burgundy, or Sherry are typically more closely associated with the regions in which they originated.

27 C.F.R. § 24.257 - The last significant regulation governing champagne in the United States involves the labeling of wine containers. In general, the volume of the bottle determines the minimum type size that must be used on the wine container’s label. The label must also show the name and address of the location at which the wine was bottled and packed, the brand name, the alcohol content as percent by volume or in accordance with 27 C.F.R. Part 4, an appropriate designation of the kind of wine, and the net content of the container. With respect to champagne, the use of its semi-generic designation may appear on the label if there also appears an appropriate appellation of origin and the wine conforms to the standard of identity set forth elsewhere in 27 C.F.R. Part 4.

We hope you have enjoyed our little trip into the history and governance of champagne production as we celebrate National Bubbly Day. Wine making is a highly regulated field, indeed, but these regulations ensure that consumers are not being misled and are being treated to a sparkling wine or champagne of the highest quality. So, no matter what your bubbly of choice is, be it prosecco, cava, or Champagne, simply relax and enjoy this sunshine in a glass.

Cheers!

À votre santé!

Holding It Together

Ah, the little paper clip! That little trombone-shaped piece of metal is so ubiquitous that we don’t really think about it until we need one. It’s almost sad to think what will happen if we were all to go truly paperless. Until that day, we can take time out and celebrate this simple invention. And today is the perfect day because May 29 is National Paper Clip Day.

Invention of paper clip

Samuel B. Fay is the holder of the first patent for the paper clip. Fay’s application was granted, and U.S. Patent No. 64,088 was issued on April 23, 1867. According to the patent, the “loop of wire” he created was designed to hold tags or tickets to fabrics so that there would be less damage done to the fabric. It wasn’t until the late 1890s that the clip using the “Fay design” became widely used and advertised. In 1877, Erlman J. Wright received a patent for a clip that was specially designed for fastening leaves of paper together. His design more closely resembled the paper clips we see today than the original “Fay design.” It was in 1892, however, when the “Gem” paper clip emerged. Although never patented, the Gem paper clip is the one most widely used today. For more on the history of the paper clip and some illustrations of early clip designs, check out the Early Office Museum.

Other uses for paper clips

Of course, we all know that paper clips can be used for more than just fastening papers together. MacGyver, anyone? A search of the Internet yields loads of results, but here are some of our favorites: cell phone stand, replacement for broken zipper tab, substitute for food bag ties or chip clips, emergency hair clip, compass, jewelry clasp, holder of a fallen skirt hem, and eyeglasses repair tool. Many websites mention using paper clips as bookmarks, but as librarians, we just don’t like the indentations that the paper clips leave on the pages, even though the embellishments added to the clips are adorable.

Legal cases involving paper clips

And yes, paper clips even sometimes take a starring or supporting role in litigation. Unfortunately, most cases involving paper clips are criminal in nature, demonstrating that the paper clip is indeed a useful tool, perhaps too useful, especially in those instances where it is not being used for its intended purpose. For your reading pleasure, we have compiled a brief list of cases in which the paper clip sometimes played an all-too prominent role:

People v. Gratsch, 831 N.W. 2d 462 (2013) - Defendant, who was convicted of possessing a weapon in jail, said weapon being a sharpened paper clip fragment attached to the end of a cotton swab, was granted an evidentiary hearing on his claim of prosecutorial misconduct. One of his arguments was that the Michigan statute prohibiting the possession of weapons in jail was unconstitutionally vague. The appellate court disagreed.

Johnson v. Curtin, Opinion of the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division, issued January 25, 2010, (No. 1:06 - CV-778) - Petitioner was kept in restraints during his jury trial because of his prior behavior of attacking and threatening jail staff, jamming a piece of paper clip into his handcuffs with the intention of unlocking them, and yelling and beating on the door of his cell, among other things. The court overruled petitioner’s objections and dismissed his § 2254 habeas petition for lack of merit.

McQuiggan v. Boy Scouts of America, 705, 536 A 2d 137 (Md. 1988) - The court affirmed a judgment holding that a twelve-year boy could not recover for an eye injury that he sustained when he voluntarily participated in a game involving the shooting of paper clips from rubber bands.

State v. Herrick, 567 N.W. 2d 336 (ND 1997) - During a search of some garbage cans at the back of defendant’s property, an officer from the North Dakota Police Department’s Drug Task Force discovered a paper clip with residue on it, a seed, and a stem. Defendant was convicted following a conditional plea of guilty to possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia. Defendant appealed. The conviction and the order denying a motion to suppress were reversed and the matter was remanded for further proceedings.

The Famous (or Rather Infamous) Paper Clip

Microsoft’s Clippit, the default Office Assistant used in Microsoft Office

For those of you old enough to remember, perhaps, the most famous paper clip was Clippit (or Clippy, as he was more commonly known). Clippy was Microsoft’s animated office assistant that was always ready to jump in and help you with any task, even when you didn’t want or need him to. Unfortunately for Microsoft, Clippy was extremely unpopular among users. Although he was trying to be helpful, his enthusiasm was sometimes a bit misplaced and annoying more often than not. Plus, many women felt that Clippy, with his bushy brows and expressive eyes, was leering at them. Sadly, Clippy met his demise in 2007. Clippy made a brief appearance last year in the form of animated stickers for Microsoft’s Teams chat platform, but his resurrection just didn’t stick; he disappeared a day later. For all of his faults, though, Clippy heralded a new age of AI assistants.

We hope you enjoyed our little look back at the versatile and handy paper clip. It’s what helps us keep things together.

Regulating Your Fun in the Sun

Did you know that the Friday before Memorial Day has been designated as Don’t Fry Day? Relax. It doesn’t mean that you cannot eat or cook any fried food, such as fried chicken or French fries, but rather, it is day set aside by the National Council on Skin Cancer Prevention to encourage sun safety awareness. In the United States, Memorial Day weekend is typically the unofficial beginning of the summer season. That would mean (in a pandemic-free world), trips to the beach or the park, backyard barbecues, and swimming, all of the hallmarks of summer living. All of that time spent outdoors in the sunshine also means that it’s time to slather on the sunscreen.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), skin cancer is the most common form of cancer found in the United States. While it recognizes that there are benefits to spending time outdoors, the CDC recommends protecting your skin from harmful UV rays “by staying in the shade, wearing protective clothing, and applying a broad spectrum sunscreen with a sun protection factor (SPF) of 15 or higher.”

All of this talk of sunscreen made us wonder about the regulations that govern the sunscreen that we are putting in our skin. (We’re law librarians. Can’t you tell?) The U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) is the agency responsible for regulating the topical sunscreens that consumers find on store shelves. These regulations can be found in 21 C.F.R. §§352.1 - 352.77 (2020). Specifically, the FDA regulates the active ingredients that are in the sunscreen, the combination of those ingredients, the labeling of the products, and the testing procedures. In addition, to be “generally recognized as safe and effective” (GRASE) and not misbranded, a sunscreen product must meet the conditions set forth in 21 C.F.R. § 330.1 (2020) as well as those found in Part 352.

To comply with provisions in the Federal Food, Drug, & Cosmetic Act (FDCA), as amended by the Sunscreen Innovation Act (SIA), the FDA published a proposed rule in the Federal Register early last year requesting additional data to determine whether certain active ingredients found in sunscreens are GRASE in light of changed conditions since the publication of the previous rule in 1999. The proposed rule would update the regulatory requirements for most sunscreens. The FDA planned to implement this rule and make it part of a final Monograph, but never did. The proposed rule and monograph have been thrust once again into the light of day with the enactment of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act in March. Section 3854 of the CARES Act, which sunsets the SIA on September 30, 2022, permits a sponsor of a nonprescription sunscreen active ingredient to elect a review of the ingredients in accordance with the procedure set forth in section 505G of the FDCA, as added by Section 3851 of the CARES Act or pursuant to the process set forth in section 586C of the FDCA (21 U.S.C. §360fff-3). The effect of these new rules concerning the safety of certain active ingredients remains to be to seen. Until then, the FDA still highly recommends that everyone use sunscreen and be smart when it comes to sun exposure. So, on this Feel Good Friday, we want you to enjoy, have fun, and be safe. And, remember, don’t fry today or any day.

From Rickrolling to Zoombombing

In 2008, the interactive video game company, Take Two, announced the release of Grand Theft Auto IV, a highly anticipated event in the world of gaming. The trailer, leaked prior to its release, generated so much online traffic that it broke the Internet. Many eager fans were unable to stream or download the promotional video, and as result, one of the most popular memes of all time was born. A prankster on the popular video game chat board, 4chan, tricked unwitting suspects by hyperlinking the supposed trailer for Grand Theft Auto IV to the YouTube video of Rick Astley’s 1987 hit song, “Never Gonna Give You Up.” Rickrolling, as it came to be known, was born.

Internet lore says that Rickrolling wasn’t an original idea. Like most creative endeavors, it evolved from an earlier prank called duckrolling. The concept was less viral for obvious reasons – instead of Rick Astley’s trademark moves and upbeat earworm, the targeted parties were presented with an image of a duck on wheels accompanied by a more obscure musical selection, The Pickard Song by DarkMateria. The clear winner emerged.

A defining quality of the Internet meme is, of course, its transformation over time. Memes morph as people modify and share them and as technology advances. Today, with so many people working from home and connecting online, the potential for shenanigans is even greater. Videoconferencing platforms, and Zoom in particular, have been used for business meetings, social gatherings, medical visits, and therapy groups. With so many people accessing this popular platform every hour, users are sitting ducks for those with bad intentions. Enter Zoombombing, the practice of invading a public or private meeting over the Zoom platform to broadcast offensive or disruptive content. Whereas Rickrolling was (mostly) harmless and fun, Zoombombing is anything but. In fact, it’s now become a criminal act to intrude on public or private meetings. Federal prosecutors and the FBI are warning would-be hackers that the legal implications of Zoombombing are real.  

We’ve assembled a few good resources about Zoombombing, focused specifically on recent developments in the law. We also link to two articles with tips for protecting your meetings from uninvited guests to lessen your own chances of being Zoombombed. If you are the victim of a teleconferencing attack, report the incident to the FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center. Stay safe!

Links

Zoombombing and the Law (Reason)

Federal, State, and Local Law Enforcement Warn Against Teleconferencing Hacking During Coronavirus Pandemic (United States Department of Justice)

Who’s Zoomin Who? (National Law Review)

Protect Yourself

How to stop trolls from taking over your Zoom call (The Verge)

Security tips every teacher and professor needs to know about Zoom, right now (ArsTechnica)