Tuesday, August 20, 2013

AirTalk for Wednesday, August 21, 2013


Wednesday, August 21, 2013

11:06 –11:30




Topic: Should parents who choose not to vaccinate their kids be liable if others get sick or die as a result?

Guest: Arthur Caplan, Head, Division of Medical Ethics, NYU Langone Medical Center


Guest: Dorit Reiss (door-eet rice), Professor of Law, University of California Hastings College of Law



Guest: Eugene Volokh, Professor of Law at the UCLA School of Law


12:06 – 12:20

Topic: Should police be allowed to search your cell phone without a warrant?

Two cert petitions have been filed with the Supreme Court seeking ruling on whether searching a cell phone requires a warrant.  In one case, the US government seeks judgment regarding a case from 2007 that involves a Massachusetts man who was arrested on suspicion of selling drugs.  When making the arrest an officer noticed the suspect’s flip phone was receiving a call from “my house”, and he traced the number to an address where police later found more drugs, cash and guns.  In his case the defendant (Wurie) argued that the police had no right to look at his cell phone’s call history without a warrant, and though the initial district court denied that motion, the US First Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the defendant.  The Obama administration,countering the higher court’s ruling, points to a handful of cases that have given police discretion to search a suspect’s person under the Fourth Amendment, including items like notebooks and pagers, and are seeking judgment on whether searching through a cell phone’s call history is protected in the same way.  In the other case, Riley v. California, the police officer searched a suspect’s iPhone, and appeared to have done a more extensive search through the suspect’s contact information. At first glance it seems that searching a basic cell phone’s call log doesn’t seem to violate the Fourth Amendment, but cell phone technology has advanced so much that people nowadays hold a wealth of information and assets on their phones that make this a thornier issue. It seems that one way or the other the Supreme Court will soon have to decide exactly where cell phone data lies under the rules of the Fourth Amendment. Is a cell phone or a smartphone akin to rifling through a paper notebook? Or is it more like searching the nooks and crannies of an automobile, which can often require a warrant for searches? What if the smartphone is connected to “the cloud” and could link up to a plethora of data belonging to the arrestee?


Guest:  Jeffrey L. Fisher, Attorney for David Leon Riley in Riley v. California; Fisher authored the current petition before the Supreme Court challenging police searches of cell phone content; Professor of Law and Co-Director, Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, Stanford University Law School

2nd Guest: TBD


12:20 – 12:40

Topic:  Bring up the neighborhood: “gentefication” versus gentrification in Boyle Heights, Long Beach and other SoCal hip spots

The city of Boyle Heights, a working class Latino neighborhood east of Downtown, was recently profiled in The New York Times. The paper looked at the neighborhood’s twist on gentrification. The people changing Boyle Heights are neither white nor middle-class, but are young, hip Latinos who have moved back into the area, the very place their parents had left years ago, to open up record shops and bookstores—often times the first signs of a neighborhood going upscale.

They are called “Chipsters” – short for Chicano hipsters and what they are doing is called “gentefication.” Despite the shared cultural and ethnic background, local residents aren’t always welcoming this spate of newcomers with open arms.

This phenomenon isn’t just happening in Boyle Heights, but also in places like Santa Ana, Silver Lake, Long Beach, Echo Park —cities that have always had a large Latino presence. Is there a difference between gentefication and good old gentrification? Have you returned to a neighborhood you grew up in? If so, why?


Guest:  TBD


12:40 – 1:00

Topic:  Paying for dates: Men want women to chip in; women only want to be asked

Most men are still paying for dates, but in reality many are wishing women would chip in sometimes. According to a new study presented at the American Sociology Association, 64% of men and women believed should pick up the tab from time to time. At the same time, 39% of women hoped men would not ask them to contribute at all. The ritual of men paying for all the outings dates back to when most jobs were not accessible to women. But today men and women are both equally in the workforce. The study looks at how this dynamic shift of gender roles impacts the dating realm. Do women want equality in dating too? The study shows that younger college-educated men and women were more likely to share the costs of dating.Who should pay for the first date? Should men always pay? How have the ‘rules’ of dating changed? Does it matter who makes more money?

Guest: Janet Lever, Professor  of Sociology at Cal State Los Angeles and the co-author of the study titled “Who Pays for Dates.”



Warm regards,

Jasmin Tuffaha    office: 626.583.5162 

Producer, “AirTalk with Larry Mantle” 


89.3 KPCC 89.1 KUOR 90.3 KVLA
A Southern California Public Radio station
SCPR.org | Facebook | @AirTalk


No comments: