LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — A federal appeals court has reinstated an Arkansas rule prohibiting election officials from accepting voter registration forms signed with an electronic signature.
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday afternoon issued an administrative stay of a preliminary injunction that a federal judge issued against the rule adopted earlier this year by the State Board of Election Commissioners. An appeal of the preliminary injunction is still pending before the court.
The board in April said Arkansas’ constitution only allows certain state agencies, and not elections officials, to accept electronic signatures. Under the rule, voters will have to register by signing their name with a pen.
The rule was adopted after nonprofit group Get Loud Arkansas helped register voters using electronic signatures. Get Loud said the board’s decision conflicts with a recent attorney general’s opinion that an electronic signature is generally valid under state law. The group filed a lawsuit challenging the board’s decision.
“This rule creates an obstacle that risks disenfranchising eligible voters and disrupting the fundamental process of our elections,” Get Loud said in a statement following the 8th Circuit order. “The preliminary injunction recognized that this irreparable harm must be avoided.”
Chris Madison, director of the state Board of Election Commissioners, told county clerks on Monday that any voter registrations completed before the stay was issued Friday were eligible to have electronic signatures.
Madison asked the clerks to identify any registration applications Saturday or later that used electronic signatures and to make every effort to contact the voter as soon as possible to give them a chance to correct their application.
Madison in April said the rule was needed to create uniformity across the state. Some county clerks had previously accepted electronic signatures and others had not.
The Arkansas rule is among a wave of new voting restrictions in Republican-led states in recent years that critics say disenfranchise voters, particularly in low-income and underserved areas.
LAUSANNE, Switzerland — American gymnast Jordan Chiles is asking Switzerland’s Supreme Court to overturn a ruling by the Court of Arbitration for Sport that stripped Chiles of a bronze medal in floor exercise at the 2024 Olympics.
Chiles, with the support of the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee and USA Gymnastics, filed the appeal on Monday, a little over a month after CAS voided an on-floor appeal by Chiles’ coach Cecile Landi during the event finals on Aug. 5 that vaulted Chiles from fifth to third.
CAS, following a hearing requested by Romanian officials, ruled Landi’s appeal came 4 seconds beyond the 1-minute time limit for scoring inquiries and recommended the initial finishing order be restored. The International Gymnastics Federation complied and the International Olympic Committee ended up awarding bronze to Romanian Ana Barbosu on Aug. 16.
Chiles’ appeal maintains that the CAS hearing violated her “right to be heard” by refusing to allow video evidence that Chiles and USA Gymnastics believe showed Landi appealed within the 1-minute time allotment. Chiles’ appeal also argues that Hamid G. Gharavi, president of the CAS panel, has a conflict of interest due to past legal ties to Romania.
USA Gymnastics wrote in a statement Monday night that it made a “collective, strategic decision to have Jordan lead the initial filing. USAG is closely coordinating with Jordan and her legal team and will make supportive filings with the court in the continued pursuit of justice for Jordan.”
The appeal is the next step in what could be a months- or years-long legal battle over the gymnastics scores.
Chiles was last among the eight women to compete during the floor exercise finals initially given a score of 13.666 that placed her fifth, right behind Barbosu and fellow Romanian Sabrina Maneca-Voinea. Landi called for an inquiry on Chiles’ score.
“At this point, we had nothing to lose, so I was like ‘We’re just going to try,’” Landi said after the awards ceremony. “I honestly didn’t think it was going to happen, but when I heard her scream, I turned around and was like ‘What?’”
Judges awarded the appeal, leapfrogging Chiles past Barbosu and Maneca-Voinea for the last spot on the podium.
Romanian officials appealed to CAS on several fronts while also asking a bronze medal be awarded to Chiles, Barbosu and Maneca-Voinea. The FIG and the IOC ultimately gave the bronze to Barbosu, who beat her teammate on a tiebreaker because she produced a higher execution score during her routine.
TikTok faced off with the U.S. government in federal court on Monday, arguing a law that could ban the platform in a few short months was unconstitutional while the Justice Department said the measure is critical to eliminate a national security risk posed by the popular social media company.
Attorneys for the two sides – and content creators – appeared before a panel of three judges at a federal appeals court in Washington, where TikTok and its China-based parent company, ByteDance, are challenging the law that is forcing them to break ties by mid-January or lose one of their biggest markets in the world.
Andrew Pincus, a veteran attorney representing the two companies, argued in court that the law unfairly targets the company and runs afoul of the First Amendment because TikTok Inc. – the U.S. arm of TikTok – is an American entity. Another attorney representing creators who are also challenging the law also argued it violates the rights of U.S. speakers and is akin to prohibiting Americans from publishing on foreign-owned media outlets, such as Politico, Al Jazeera or Spotify.
“The law before this court is unprecedented and its effect would be staggering,” Pincus said, adding the act would impose speech limitations based on future risks.
The U.S. has said it’s concerned about TikTok collecting vast swaths of user data, including sensitive information on viewing habits, that could fall into the hands of the Chinese government through coercion. The U.S. also says the proprietary algorithm that fuels what users see on the app is vulnerable to manipulation by Chinese authorities, who can use it to shape content on the platform in a way that’s difficult to detect.
Daniel Tenny, an attorney for the Justice Department, argued in court that data collection is useful for many companies for commercial purposes, such as target advertisements or tailoring videos to users’ interests.
“The problem is that same data is extremely valuable to a foreign adversary trying to compromise the security of the United States,” he said.
Pincus, the attorney for TikTok, said Congress should have aired on the side of disclosing any potential propaganda on the platform instead of pursuing a divesture-or-ban approach, which the two companies have maintained will only lead to a ban. He also said statements from lawmakers before the law was passed show they were motivated by the propaganda they perceived to be on TikTok, namely an imbalance between pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel content on the platform during the war in Gaza.
But the panel – composed of two Republican and one Democrat appointed judges – expressed some skepticism, pressing the attorneys on TikTok’s side if they believe the government has any leeway to curtail an influential media company controlled by a foreign entity in an adversarial nation. The judges also asked if the arguments presented would apply in cases where the U.S. is engaged in war.
Judge Neomi Rao, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump, said the creators suing over the law could continue speaking on TikTok if the company is sold or if they choose to post content on other platforms. But Jeffrey Fisher, their attorney, pushed back, arguing there are not “interchangeable mediums” for them because TikTok is unique in its look and feel, and the types of audiences it allows creators to reach.
In the second half of the hearing, the panel also pressed the Justice Department on First Amendment challenges to the law.
Judge Sri Srinivasan, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, said efforts to stem content manipulation through government action does set off alarm bells and impact people who receive speech on TikTok. Tenny, the attorney for the DOJ, responded by saying the law doesn’t target TikTok users or creators and that any impact on them is only indirect.
For its part, TikTok has repeatedly said it does not share U.S. user data with the Chinese government and that concerns the government has raised have never been substantiated. In their lawsuit, TikTok and ByteDance have also claimed divestment is not possible. And even if it was, they say TikTok would be reduced to a shell of its former self because it would be stripped of the technology that powers it.
Though the government’s primary reasoning for the law is public, significant portions of its court filings include classified information that has been redacted and hidden from public view.
In one of the redacted statements submitted in late July, the Justice Department claimed TikTok took direction from the Chinese government about content on its platform, without disclosing additional details about when or why those incidents occurred. Casey Blackburn, a senior U.S. intelligence official, wrote in a legal statement that ByteDance and TikTok “have taken action in response” to Chinese government demands “to censor content outside of China.” Though the intelligence community had “no information” that this has happened on the platform operated by TikTok in the U.S., Blackburn said there is a risk it “may” occur.
The U.S. has said it’s not required to wait until something detrimental happens before responding to the threat, but the companies have argued the government could have taken a more tailored approach to resolve its concerns.
During high-stakes negotiations with the Biden administration more than two years ago, TikTok presented the government with a draft 90-page agreement that allows a third party to monitor the platform’s algorithm, content moderation practices and other programming. TikTok says it has spent more than $2 billion to voluntarily implement some of these measures, which include storing U.S. user data on servers controlled by the tech giant Oracle. But it said a deal was not reached because government officials essentially walked away from the negotiating table in August 2022.
Justice officials have argued complying with the draft agreement is impossible, or would require extensive resources, due to the size and the technical complexity of TikTok. The Justice Department also said the only thing that would resolve the government’s concerns is severing the ties between TikTok and ByteDance given the porous relationship between the Chinese government and Chinese companies.
SAO PAULO (AP) — A Brazilian Supreme Court justice on Friday seized about $3 million from bank accounts belonging to social media platform X and satellite-based internet service provider Starlink, both companies controlled by tech billionaire Elon Musk.
The move by Justice Alexandre de Moraes was aimed at collecting funds that are equivalent to the amount that X owes to the country in fines. The bank accounts of the two companies have since been unfrozen.
Legal analysts have questioned de Moraes’ prior decision to freeze Starlink’s bank account to pay for cases related to X. While Musk owns both X and SpaceX, which operates Starlink, the two companies are separate entities.
Brazil’s Supreme Court said Friday in a statement that de Moraes ruled to transfer more than 7.2 million Brazilian reais ($1.3 million) from an X bank account and almost 11 million Brazilian reais ($2 million) from a Starlink account.
De Moraes made the decision on Wednesday, Brazil’s Supreme Court said. His ruling on the case is yet to be made public.
Brazil’s Supreme Court also said that the banks that hold accounts of the two companies were informed on Thursday they had complied with the decision.
“After the payment of the full amount that was owed, the justice (de Moraes) considered there was no need to keep the bank accounts frozen and ordered the immediate unfreezing of bank accounts/financial assets,” the Brazilian Supreme Court said.
X did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Associated Press.
The social media platform has been under fire in Brazil since it refused to remove content flagged as illegal by the Supreme Court justice.
De Moraes is the same justice who suspended X in Brazil due to Musk’s decision to not have a legal representative for the company in the South American nation, which is against the law.
The company has claimed that de Moraes wants an in-country representative so that local authorities can exert leverage by having someone to arrest.
Many legal analysts, including some who have supported de Moraes’ rulings related to X, disagree with charging Starlink for X’s fines.
“Starlink is a different company. Belonging to the same economic group doesn’t mean it is also responsible for a debt it did not take part of. It didn’t even have a chance to defend itself,” Lênio Streck, a renowned Brazilian jurist, said in his social media channels. “What could Starlink have done to avoid what other company did?”
Luís Henrique Machado, a law professor at the IDP university in the capital, Brasilia, said de Moraes’ decision is consistent.
“The social media company was sanctioned for not removing content after an order of the Supreme Court amid ongoing investigations. It is totally understandable that the judge requests that the fines be paid,” Machado said. “The ruling is legitimate in imposing the transfer of the amounts in compulsorily fashion.”
Since last year, X has clashed with de Moraes over its reluctance to block some users, mostly far-right activists accused of undermining Brazilian democracy. Musk has called the Brazilian justice a dictator and an autocrat due to his rulings affecting his companies in Brazil.
On. Aug. 31, Musk’s social media platform was banned nationwide and de Moraes set a $9,000 daily fine for anyone using a virtual private network (VPN) to skirt the suspension. Brazil’s X users mostly started washing up on Threads and Bluesky.
On Saturday, tens of thousands of supporters of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro flooded Sao Paulo’s main boulevard for an Independence Day rally, buoyed by de Moraes’ decisions on X, a ban they say is proof of their political persecution.
X had 22 million users in Brazil, according to estimates in the Digital 2024: Brazil report, just one-sixth the number on Instagram, and about one-fifth of Facebook or TikTok.
Since January 2022, when Starlink began operations in Brazil, it has captured a 0.5 percent share of the internet market, according to Brazil’s telecommunications agency Anatel.
DENVER (AP) — A federal judge has canceled an October trial date and set a change-of-plea hearing in a fraud case involving the owners of a Colorado funeral home where authorities discovered 190 decaying bodies.
Jon and Carie Hallford were indicted in April on fraud charges, accused of misspending nearly $900,000 in pandemic relief funds on vacations, jewelry and other personal expenses. They own the Return to Nature Funeral Home based in Colorado Springs and in Penrose, where the bodies were found.
The indictment alleges that the Hallfords gave families dry concrete instead of cremated ashes and buried the wrong body on two occasions. The couple also allegedly collected more than $130,000 from families for cremations and burial services they never provided.
The 15 charges brought by the federal grand jury are separate from the more than 200 criminal counts pending against the Hallfords in state court for corpse abuse, money laundering, theft and forgery.
Carie Hallford filed a statement with the court Thursday saying “a disposition has been reached in the instant case” and asking for a change-of-plea hearing. Jon Hallford’s request said he wanted a hearing “for the court to consider the proposed plea agreement.”
The judge granted their request to vacate the Oct. 15 trial date and all related dates and deadlines. The change-of-plea hearings were set for Oct. 24.
ST. PAUL, Minn. — A Minnesota man was sentenced to more than 33 years in prison for stabbing his wife to death during a Bible study session.
Robert Castillo, 41, who pleaded guilty in March to second-degree murder, apologized in court Friday for killing his wife, Corinna Woodhull, the St. Paul Pioneer Press reported. They had been married about two years and have five children, who are now ages 11 to 24.
Castillo’s sister told police she hosted a weekly Bible study at her St. Paul home. On the night of March 21, 2023, the couple was sitting on a couch when Castillo whispered something in Woodhull’s ear. After she shook her head “no,” Castillo pulled out a hunting knife and stabbed her multiple times, until his own family disarmed him.
His attorney, Mark Austin, told the court that Castillo’s last memory as a free man was from early that morning when he got high with a friend and ingested so much he didn’t recall what happened afterward. He asked Ramsey County District Judge Richard Kyle for a sentence of just 25 years, saying Castillo was remorseful.
“I’m taking full responsibility for my actions, even if I don’t recall anything that happened that day due to my … drug-induced psychosis,” Castillo told the court.
Prosecutor Dan Rait said Castillo has a history of hurting people who care about him.
The judge sentenced him to 33 1/3 years. In Minnesota, defendants typically serve two-thirds of their sentence in prison and the rest on supervised release.
Castillo had eight prior felony convictions, including second-degree assault for beating another woman with a hammer in 2014. At the time of the knife attack, Castillo was on intensive supervised release and had a warrant out for his arrest after he failed to show up at a court hearing on charges that he assaulted two correctional officers at the Stillwater state prison in 2020.
Members of both Woodhull’s and Castillo’s family urged her not to marry him.
“It’s a testament to the kind of person she was that she went through with it, thinking she could help him,” the prosecutor said. “I can’t believe that she knew her wedding vows would ultimately be her death sentence.”
Woodhull’s mother, Linda Castle, said she found divorce papers in her daughter’s car after her death.
“She knew it was time to walk away, and that’s why she’s dead,” Castle said.
Castle had a message afterward about domestic violence: “Women need to understand: Don’t accept this kind of behavior. It’s not OK.”
PHILADELPHIA — The driver charged with killing NHL hockey player Johnny Gaudreau and his brother Matthew as they bicycled on a rural road had a blood-alcohol level of .087, above the .08 legal limit in New Jersey, a prosecutor said Friday.
Gaudreau, 31, and brother Matthew, 29, were killed near their childhood home in South Jersey on Aug. 29, the evening before they were set to serve as groomsmen at their sister Katie’s wedding.
The driver, 43-year-old Sean M. Higgins of nearby Woodstown, New Jersey, is charged with two counts of death by auto, along with reckless driving, possession of an open container and consuming alcohol in a motor vehicle. At a virtual court hearing Friday, a judge ordered that he be held for trial after prosecutors described a history of alleged road rage and aggressive driving.
“’You were probably driving like a nut like I always tell you you do. And you don’t listen to me, instead you just yell at me,’” his wife told Higgins when he called her from jail after his arrest, according to First Assistant Prosecutor Jonathan Flynn of Salem County.
The defense described Higgins as a married father and law-abiding citizen before the 8:19 p.m. crash.
“He’s an empathetic individual and he’s a loving father of two daughters,” said defense lawyer Matthew Portella. “He’s a good person and he made a horrible decision that night.”
Higgins told police he had five or six beers that day and admitted to consuming alcohol while driving, according to the criminal complaint. He also failed a field sobriety test, the complaint said. A prosecutor on Friday said he had been drinking at home after finishing a work call at about 3 p.m., and having an upsetting conversation with his mother about a family matter.
He then had a two-hour phone call with a friend while he drove around in his Jeep with an open container, Flynn said. He had been driving aggressively behind a sedan going just above the 50 mph speed limit, sometimes tailgating, the driver told police.
When she and the vehicle ahead of her slowed down and moved left to go around the cyclists, Higgins sped up and veered right, striking the Gaudreas, the two other drivers told police.
“He indicated he didn’t even see them,” said Superior Court Judge Michael J. Silvanio, who said Higgins’ admitted “impatience” caused two deaths.
Higgins faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted, a sentence that the judge said made him a flight risk.
Higgins has a master’s degree, works in finance for an addiction treatment company, and served in combat in Iraq, his lawyers said. However, his wife said he had been drinking regularly since working from home, Flynn said.
Johnny Gaudreau, known as “Johnny Hockey,” played 10 full seasons in the league and was set to enter his third with the Columbus Blue Jackets after signing a seven-year, $68 million deal in 2022. He played his first eight seasons with the Calgary Flames, a tenure that included becoming one of the sport’s top players and a fan favorite across North America.
Widows Meredith and Madeline Gaudreau described their husbands as attached at the hip throughout their lives. Both women are expecting, and both gave moving eulogies at a heart-wrenching double funeral on Monday.
“I urge everyone to never drink and drive,” Madeline Gaudreau said. “Call a ride. Please do not put another family through this torture. The loss of Matty and John will leave a hole in the family, with his close friends, the community for eternity.”
Defense lawyers, in seeking bail, suggested that Higgins could be limited to driving only with a locking device to prevent him from drinking and driving. And they noted that he tested just over the legal limit, adding that a recent knee surgery likely impacted the field test.
But Flynn argued that the locking device would not stop what he called “the fundamental issue” of Higgins’s “angry and aggressive driving,” exacerbated that day by alcohol.
IT is the first far-right party to win German state elections since the Nazis – and the success of Alternative for Germany is down to younger supporters.
Paramedic Severin Kohler says that it is now trendy among Generation Z TikTokers to back the organisation known as AfD, which is led in the state of Thuringia by a man who has been labelled a “fascist”.
9
AfD fans Severin Kohler and Carolin LichtenheldCredit: Paul Edwards
9
AfD MP Torben Braga — who, curiously for a German anti-immigration party, was born in Brazil and is of Brazilian and Welsh ancestryCredit: Paul Edwards
9
Professor Reinhard Schramm, who lost 20 close family to the Nazi extermination camps, has had death threats and bullets sent to him in the postCredit: Paul Edwards
Severin, 28, a leader of the party’s youth wing Junge Alternative, told me: “It’s a matter of a rebellion against their parents. Being from the right is punk now.”
Almost 40 per cent of 18 to 24-year-old voters backed the AfD in Thuringia, central Germany, last week. In neighbouring Saxony, 31 per cent did the same.
Yet the local branches of the party in the two states have been classified as “right-wing extremist” by the nation’s domestic intelligence agency.
On the Instagram page of Carolin Lichtenheld, who leads Thuringia’s Junge Alternative, the 21-year-old trainee pharmacist is shown brndishing a megaphone at a rally, with the caption: “Ready to fight for the preservation of our homeland and for our future. We are the youth who are ready to resist a woke society.”
The image is hashtagged with the word “reconquista” — a reference to the recapture by Christian kings of Spain and Portugal from the Muslim Moors.
Felix Steiner, from German far-right monitoring group Mobile Consulting, agrees that young voters are attracted to the AfD.
The activist told The Sun: “Almost no other party is so active on social media platforms, especially TikTok. The message is, ‘Young people, come to us. We are the next movement’.”
Youth campaigner Severin wears a T-shirt bearing the name Bjorn Hocke — the AfD’s leader in Thuringia who has twice been convicted this year of using Nazi slogans.
Former history teacher Hocke harnessed the power of TikTok to target the youth vote during the election.
Incredible story of Nazi hunter and holocaust refugee
In one post he leads a cavalcade of motorcyclists riding models made by Simson — a brand associated with national pride by the far right — in the old Communist East Germany.
Yet critics say that behind Hocke’s glossy social media campaigning is a man who is a political “danger”.
In 2019 a court in Thuringia ruled it was not libellous to call Hocke a “fascist” as the opinion had a “verifiable, factual basis”.
Thin-lipped and greying, Hocke once described Berlin’sHolocaust Memorial as a “monument of shame” and demanded a “180-degree turn” in Germany’s culture of remembrance.
The father-of-four once spoke of the Germans “longing for a historical figure” who would “heal the wounds of the people”.
Ulrike Grosse-Rothig, leader of Thuringia’s left-wing Die Linke party, told The Sun: “Hocke is a die-hard fascist. He’s a danger for German society, its voters and to democracy.”
Former AfD Thuringia MP Oskar Helmerich has called Hocke “a dangerous man”.
Little wonder Thuringia’s small Jewish community has been fearful.
Professor Reinhard Schramm, who lost 20 close family to the Nazi extermination camps, has had death threats and bullets sent to him in the post from unknown sources.
Speaking at a synagogue in Thuringia’s largest city Erfurt, the 80-year-old Holocaust survivor told me: “The Jewish community is insecure and some are afraid. They are quite allergically against the AfD. This is not a normal party.”
Of Hocke’s demand for a “180- degree turn” in Germany’s culture of remembrance, the grandfather-of-three says: “So does this mean that I am not supposed to speak about my grandmother who was gassed to death in a German gas chamber?”
‘Some are afraid’
Severin insists the AfD is “against political violence”, adding: “We don’t have anything in common with people sending bullets to synagogues.”
The AfD won Thuringia — a largely rural state in central Germany — with just under 33 per cent of the vote.
It’s the latest European convulsion of the far right which has seen rampaging thugs attempt to torch migrant hotels in Britain and Marine Le Pen’s National Rally topping parliamentary elections in France.
In Germany — as elsewhere — the touchstone issue has been immigration.
Days before the Thuringia vote, a Syrian asylum seeker went on a knife rampage, killing three in the west German city of Solingen.
It emerged that the man — linked to Islamic State — had previously had his claim for asylum turned down but he had not been deported because the authorities could not find him.
Germany’s lame duck premier Olaf Scholz promised to speed up deportations and other mainstream parties followed suit with tough talk on immigration, including the conservative Christian Democratic Union.
9
Andreas Buhl, a Thuringian MP for Merkel’s CDU, concedes that the former Chancellor’s open border policy was wrongCredit: Paul Edwards
9
A CDU poster calling to stop illegal migrationCredit: Paul Edwards
9
An anti-multicultural bannerCredit: Paul Edwards
Yesterday, it was reported that Germany’s interior minister Nancy Faeser has told the EU that controls will be brought in on all the country’s land borders, to deal with the “continuing burden” of migration and “Islamist terrorism”.
Britain, where populists Reform won four million votes at the General Election, will be watching whether moves towards the AfD’s turf will win back voters.
As well as a hardline stance on immigration, the AfD is also against what it says are over-zealous green policies, and it wants to halt weapons supplies to Ukraine.
At the Thuringian parliament in Erfurt, I met key Hocke lieutenant Torben Braga — who, curiously for a German anti-immigration party, was born in Brazil and is of Brazilian and Welsh ancestry.
The 33-year-old Thuringia MP says: “Bjorn Hocke doesn’t have a single fascist vein in his body.”
‘Political firewall’
Of his boss’s infamous “shame” reference to the Berlin Holocaust memorial, Braga says he meant it was “a shameful part of our history”.
Braga believes the security services are monitoring him and suggests “provocateurs” from those agencies were behind the “two or three cases” of people doing the Hitler salute at a recent rally in Erfurt.
Picturesque Erfurt is, at first glance, perhaps an unlikely setting for a far-right upsurge. Half-timbered town houses crowd flower-bedecked medieval squares where tourists enjoy beers on its many restaurant terraces.
9
A far-right mob gather at a demonstration in Solingen last monthCredit: EPA
9
Far-right AfD supporters wave German flags, including one adorned with an Iron CrossCredit: Getty
9
The AfD party’s slick TikTok videosCredit: tiktok/@afd
This summer the England squad had their Euro 2024 training base a short drive away and Three Lions star Jude Bellingham was spotted having coffee in the city of 215,000.
Yet Thuringia has seen too much history in the 20th century.
After the Americans liberated Thuringia, it fell under Soviet control.
From 1949 to 1990 it was part of the Communist state of East Germany.
Post-German reunification, Thuringia and other eastern states struggled economically, with many youngsters heading to western Germany.
Immigration became a key political battleground after conservative Chancellor Angela Merkel opened Germany’s borders to a million refugees in 2015 and 2016.
Last year around 334,000 people claimed asylum in Germany — more than France and Spain combined. In the UK the figure was just under 85,000 people.
The AfD — formed in 2013 as a Eurosceptic party — has seen its fortunes rise as it hammered home its anti-immigration stance.
No other party is so active on social media platforms, especially TikTok.The AfD post pictures of demonstrations. The message is: ‘Young people come to us. We are the next movement’
It called for a ban on burqas, minarets, and call to prayer using the slogan, “Islam is not a part of Germany” in 2016.
In Thuringia, Hocke led a radical AfD faction called The Wing, deemed beyond the pale even by many in his own party.
Andreas Buhl, a Thuringian MP for Merkel’s CDU, concedes that the former Chancellor’s open border policy was wrong.
He told me: “In hindsight, it should have been clearer that you can also push people back at the border who have already entered another European country.”
He pledged, as other mainstream parties have, not to work with the AfD, creating a political firewall likely to block it from taking power.
It raises the spectre that those who voted for it may come to believe that democracy is failing them.
But anti-far-right activist Felix Steiner says only around half of AfD supporters are wedded to their hardline doctrines, with the rest supporting them as a protest vote.
He added: “The AfD result could be halved if voters were satisfied with other parties’ policies.”
The fight for the political soul of Germany’s Generation Z goes on.
It’s a battle of ideas that may be won or lost on the feeds of TikTok and Instagram.
KHIRBET ZANUTA, West Bank — An entire Palestinian community fled their tiny West Bank village last fall after repeated threats from Israeli settlers with a history of violence. Then, in a rare endorsement of Palestinian land rights, Israel’s highest court ruled this summer the displaced residents of Khirbet Zanuta were entitled to return under the protection of Israeli forces.
But their homecoming has been bittersweet. In the intervening months, nearly all the houses in the village, a health clinic and a school were destroyed — along with the community’s sense of security in the remote desert land where they have farmed and herded sheep for decades.
Roughly 40% of former residents have so far chosen not to return. The 150 or so that have come back are sleeping outside the ruins of their old homes. They say they are determined to rebuild – and to stay – even as settlers once again try to intimidate them into leaving and a court order prevents them from any new construction.
“There is joy, but there are some drawbacks,” said Fayez Suliman Tel, the head of the village council and one of the first to come back to see the ransacked village – roofs seemingly blown off buildings, walls defaced by graffiti.
“The situation is extremely miserable,” Tel said, “but despite that, we are steadfast and staying in our land, and God willing, this displacement will not be repeated.”
The Israeli military body in charge of civilian affairs in the occupied West Bank said in a statement to The Associated Press it had not received any claims of Israeli vandalism of the village, and that it was taking measures to “ensure security and public order” during the villagers’ return.
“The Palestinians erected a number of structural components illegally at the place, and in that regard enforcement proceedings were undertaken in accordance with law,” the statement said.
The villagers of Khirbet Zanuta had long faced harassment and violence from settlers. But after the Oct. 7 attack on Israel by Hamas that launched the war in Gaza, they said they received explicit death threats from Israelis living in an unauthorized outpost up the hill called Meitarim Farm. The outpost is run by Yinon Levi, who has been sanctioned by the U.S., UK, EU and Canada for menacing his Palestinian neighbors.
The villagers say they reported the threats and attacks to Israeli police, but said they got little help. Fearing for their lives, at the end of October, they packed up whatever they could carry and left.
Though settler violence had been rising even before the war under the far-right government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, it has been turbocharged ever since Oct. 7. More than 1,500 Palestinians have been displaced by settler violence since then, according to the United Nations, and very few have returned home.
Khirbet Zanuta stands as a rare example. It is unclear if any other displaced community has been granted a court’s permission to return since the start of the war.
Even though residents have legal protection Israel’s highest court, they still have to contend with Levi and other young men from the Meitarim Farm outpost trying to intimidate them.
Shepherd Fayez Fares Al Samareh, 57, said he returned to Khirbet Zanuta two weeks ago to find that his house had been bulldozed by settlers. The men of his family have joined him in bringing their flocks back home, he said, but conditions in the village are grave.
“The children have not returned and the women as well. Where will they stay? Under the sun?” he said.
Settler surveillance continues: Al Samareh said that every Friday and Saturday, settlers arrive to the village, photographing residents.
Videos taken by human rights activists and obtained by The Associated Press show settlers roaming around Khirbet Zanuta last month, taking pictures of residents as Israeli police look on.
By displacing small villages, rights groups say West Bank settlers like Levi are able to accumulate vast swaths of land, reshaping the map of the occupied territory that Palestinians hope to include in their homeland as part of any two-state solution.
The plight of Khirbet Zanuta is also an example of the limited effectiveness of international sanctions as a means of reducing settler violence in the West Bank. The U.S. recently targeted Hashomer Yosh, a government-funded group that sends volunteers to work on West Bank farms, both legal and illegal, with sanctions. Hashomer Yosh sent volunteers to Levi’s outpost, a Nov. 13 Facebook post said.
“After all 250 Palestinian residents of Khirbet Zanuta were forced to leave, Hashomer Yosh volunteers fenced off the village to prevent the residents from returning,” a U.S. State Department spokesman, Matthew Miller, said last week.
Neither Hashomer Yosh nor Levi responded to a request for comment on intrusions into the village since residents returned. But Levi claimed in a June interview with AP that the land was his, and admitted to taking part in clearing it of Palestinians, though he denied doing so violently.
“Little by little, you feel when you drive on the roads that everyone is closing in on you,” he said at the time. “They’re building everywhere, wherever they want. So you want to do something about it.”
The legal rights guaranteed to Khirbet Zanuta’s residents only go so far. Under the terms of the court ruling that allowed them to return, they are forbidden from building new structures across the roughly 1 square kilometer village. The land, the court ruled, is part of an archaeological zone, so any new structures are at risk of demolition.
Distraught but not deterred, the villagers are repairing badly damaged homes, the health clinic and the EU-funded school — by whom, they do not know for sure.
“We will renovate these buildings so that they are qualified to receive students before winter sets in,” Khaled Doudin, the governor of the Hebron region that includes Khirbet Zanuta, said as he stood in the bulldozed school.
“And after that we will continue to rehabilitate it,” he said, “so that we do not give the occupation the opportunity to demolish it again.”
WASHINGTON (AP) — Seven news organizations filed a legal motion Friday asking the U.S. military commission at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to make public the plea agreement that prosecutors struck with alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and two fellow defendants.
The plea agreements, filed early last month and promptly sealed, triggered objections from Republican lawmakers and families of some of the nearly 3,000 people killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, al-Qaida attacks. The controversy grew when Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin announced days later he was revoking the deal, the product of two years of negotiations among government prosecutors and defense attorneys that were overseen by Austin’s department.
Austin’s move caused upheaval in the pretrial hearings now in their second decade at Guantanamo, leading the three defendants to suspend participation in any further pretrial hearings. Their lawyers pursued new complaints that Austin’s move was illegal and amounted to unlawful interference by him and the GOP lawmakers.
Seven news organizations — Fox News, NBC, NPR, The Associated Press, The New York Times, The Washington Post and Univision — filed the claim with the military commission. It argues that the Guantanamo court had failed to establish any significant harm to U.S. government interests from allowing the public to know terms of the agreement.
The public’s need to know what is in the sealed records “has only been heightened as the Pretrial Agreements have become embroiled in political controversy,” lawyers for the news organizations argued in Friday’s motion. “Far from threatening any compelling government interest, public access to these records will temper rampant speculation and accusation.”
The defendants’ legal challenges to Austin’s actions and government prosecutors’ response to those also remain under seal.
The George W. Bush administration set up the military commission at the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo after the 2001 attacks. The 9/11 case remains in pretrial hearings after more than a decade, as judges, the government and defense attorneys hash out the extent to which the defendants’ torture during years in CIA custody after their capture has rendered evidence legally inadmissible. Staff turnover and the court’s distance from the U.S. also have slowed proceedings.
Members of the press and public must travel to Guantanamo to watch the trial, or to military installations in the U.S. to watch by remote video. Court filings typically are sealed indefinitely for security reviews that search for any classified information.
DOVER, Del. (AP) — A federal judge in Delaware has ruled in favor of a firm seeking assurance that it will be able to sell its minority stake in the parent company of former president Donald Trump’s Truth Social platform.
The judge on Friday granted summary judgment to Florida-based United Atlantic Ventures LLC in a lawsuit filed against Minnesota-based Odyssey Transfer and Trust Co., a business that handles securities transfers among registered shareholders.
UAV is owned by Andrew Litinsky and Wesley Moss, former contestants on Trump’s TV show, “The Apprentice” who also helped facilitate a merger that took Trump Media public in March.
Since then, UAV and Trump Media have been battling in courts in both Delaware and Florida over UAV’s stake in the company. Attorneys for Trump Media assured a state judge in Delaware earlier this year that UAV was entitled to an 8.6% stake and would suffer no merger-related dilution. They now contend, however, that UAV is not entitled to its shares because of pre-merger mismanagement by Litinsky and Moss.
Friday’s ruling involves UAV’s concerns that it will not receive its Trump Media shares, currently valued at about $350 million, from Odyssey when a post-merger lockup period expires Sept. 19. According to court filings, Odyssey told UAV earlier this year that it would be taking direction from TMTG and its lawyers.
After Odyssey filed a lawsuit, the parties appeared to have reached a resolution, with Odyssey saying it would remove transfer restrictions on the share after the lockup period expires “without preference to any TMTG shareholder.” After seeking approval from Trump Media, however, Odyssey tried to change that language to “on the same basis as other similarly situated TMTG shareholders.”
Trump holds about 115 million TMTG shares, or roughly 60% of the company’s outstanding shares.
U.S. District Judge Gregory Williams questioned Odyssey’s conduct, noting that it claimed the language change was “immaterial,” while allowing it to scuttle settlement negotiations.
“Even outside settlement negotiations, Odyssey’s conduct has been elusive,” Williams wrote.
Williams ordered that when Odyssey is notified by TMTG of the expiration of the lockup provisions, it must promptly notify UAV, remove transfer restrictions on all shares and not interfere with the delivery of the shares.
TMTG’s share price hit a high of $79.38 on its first day of trading but is now hovering around $17, closing Friday at $17.10.
DOVER, Del. — A federal judge in Delaware has ruled in favor of a firm seeking assurance that it will be able to sell its minority stake in the parent company of former president Donald Trump’s Truth Social platform.
The judge on Friday granted summary judgment to Florida-based United Atlantic Ventures LLC in a lawsuit filed against Minnesota-based Odyssey Transfer and Trust Co., a business that handles securities transfers among registered shareholders.
UAV is owned by Andrew Litinsky and Wesley Moss, former contestants on Trump’s TV show, “The Apprentice” who also helped facilitate a merger that took Trump Media public in March.
Since then, UAV and Trump Media have been battling in courts in both Delaware and Florida over UAV’s stake in the company. Attorneys for Trump Media assured a state judge in Delaware earlier this year that UAV was entitled to an 8.6% stake and would suffer no merger-related dilution. They now contend, however, that UAV is not entitled to its shares because of pre-merger mismanagement by Litinsky and Moss.
Friday’s ruling involves UAV’s concerns that it will not receive its Trump Media shares, currently valued at about $350 million, from Odyssey when a post-merger lockup period expires Sept. 19. According to court filings, Odyssey told UAV earlier this year that it would be taking direction from TMTG and its lawyers.
After Odyssey filed a lawsuit, the parties appeared to have reached a resolution, with Odyssey saying it would remove transfer restrictions on the share after the lockup period expires “without preference to any TMTG shareholder.” After seeking approval from Trump Media, however, Odyssey tried to change that language to “on the same basis as other similarly situated TMTG shareholders.”
Trump holds about 115 million TMTG shares, or roughly 60% of the company’s outstanding shares.
U.S. District Judge Gregory Williams questioned Odyssey’s conduct, noting that it claimed the language change was “immaterial,” while allowing it to scuttle settlement negotiations.
“Even outside settlement negotiations, Odyssey’s conduct has been elusive,” Williams wrote.
Williams ordered that when Odyssey is notified by TMTG of the expiration of the lockup provisions, it must promptly notify UAV, remove transfer restrictions on all shares and not interfere with the delivery of the shares.
TMTG’s share price hit a high of $79.38 on its first day of trading but is now hovering around $17, closing Friday at $17.10.
WINDER, Ga. — The father of the 14-year-old suspect in the deadly shooting at a Georgia high school will remain jailed without bail after a Friday morning hearing.
Colin Gray’s hearing came shortly after a court appearance for his son, Colt Gray, who’s accused of killing four people in a shooting at Apalachee High School. The teen will also remain in detention.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. AP’s earlier story follows below.
The 14-year-old suspect in a shooting at a Georgia high school that killed four people will stay in detention as his lawyer declined to seek bail at a Friday morning court hearing.
After the hearing, Colt Gray was escorted out in shackles at the wrists and ankles in khaki pants and a green shirt. The judge then called Colt Gray back to the courtroom to correct an earlier misstatement that his crimes could be punishable by death. Because he’s a juvenile, the maximum penalty he would face is life without parole. The judge also set another hearing for Dec. 4.
Friday’s hearing comes a day after the teen’s father was also arrested for allowing his son to have a weapon.
According to arrest warrants obtained by The Associated Press, Colt Gray is accused of using a semiautomatic assault-style rifle to kill two students and two teachers at Apalachee High School in Winder, outside Atlanta. Nine people were also hurt in Wednesday’s attack. Authorities have not offered any motive or explained how Gray obtained the gun or got it into the school.
The teen’s father, Colin Gray, 54, was charged Thursday in connection with the shooting, including with counts of involuntary manslaughter and second-degree murder, Georgia Bureau of Investigation Director Chris Hosey said.
“His charges are directly connected with the actions of his son and allowing him to possess a weapon,” Hosey said. Colin Gray’s first court appearance also was set for Friday.
It’s the latest example of prosecutors holding parents responsible for their children’s actions in school shootings. In April, Michigan parents Jennifer and James Crumbley were the first convicted in a U.S. mass school shooting. They were sentenced to at least 10 years in prison for not securing a firearm at home and acting indifferently to signs of their son’s deteriorating mental health before he killed four students in 2021.
Before Colin Gray’s arrest was reported, the AP knocked on the door of a home listed for him seeking comment about his son’s arrest. Court records early Friday didn’t indicate whether either had a lawyer yet ahead of their court hearings.
Colt Gray was charged as an adult with four counts of murder in the deaths of Mason Schermerhorn and Christian Angulo, both 14, Richard Aspinwall, 39, and Cristina Irimie, 53.
A neighbor remembered Schermerhorn as inquisitive when he was a little boy. Aspinwall and Irimie were both math teachers, and Aspinwall also helped coach the school’s football team. Irimie, who immigrated from Romania, volunteered at a local church, where she taught dance.
Before Colt Gray’s hearing at the Barrow County courthouse, court workers set out boxes of tissue along courtroom benches, and relatives and community members began to trickle into the courtroom Friday morning in advance of the hearings for the son and father.
The teen denied threatening to carry out a school shooting when authorities interviewed him last year about a menacing post on social media, according to a sheriff’s report obtained Thursday.
Conflicting evidence on the post’s origin left investigators unable to arrest anyone, the report said. Jackson County Sheriff Janis Mangum said she reviewed the report from May 2023 and found nothing that would have justified bringing charges at the time.
The attack was the latest among dozens of school shootings across the U.S. in recent years, including especially deadly ones in Newtown, Connecticut; Parkland, Florida; and Uvalde, Texas. The classroom killings have set off fervent debates about gun control but there has been little change to national gun laws.
It was the 30th mass killing in the U.S. so far this year, according to a database maintained by The Associated Press and USA Today in partnership with Northeastern University. At least 127 people have died in those killings, which are defined as events in which four or more people die within a 24-hour period, not including the killer — the same definition used by the FBI.
___
Martin reported from Atlanta. Associated Press journalists Charlotte Kramon, Sharon Johnson, Mike Stewart and Erik Verduzco in Winder; Trenton Daniel and Beatrice Dupuy in New York; Eric Tucker in Washington; Russ Bynum in Savannah, Georgia; Kate Brumback in Atlanta; and Mark Thiessen in Anchorage, Alaska, contributed to this report.
NEW YORK (AP) — An appeals court has upheld an earlier finding that the online Internet Archive violated copyright law by scanning and sharing digital books without the publishers’ permission.
Four major publishers — Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers, John Wiley & Sons and Penguin Random House — had sued the Archive in 2020, alleging that it had illegally offered free copies of more than 100 books, including fiction by Toni Morrison and J.D. Salinger. The Archive had countered that it was protected by fair use law.
In 2023, a judge for the U.S. District Court in Manhattan decided in the publishers’ favor and granted them a permanent injunction. On Wednesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit concurred, asking the question: Was the Internet Archive’s lending program, a “National Emergency Library” launched early in the pandemic, an example of fair use?
“Applying the relevant provisions of the Copyright Act as well as binding Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent, we conclude the answer is no,” the appeals court ruled.
In a statement Wednesday, the president and CEO of the Association of American Publishers, Maria Pallante, called the decision a victory for the publishing community.
“Today’s appellate decision upholds the rights of authors and publishers to license and be compensated for their books and other creative works and reminds us in no uncertain terms that infringement is both costly and antithetical to the public interest,” Pallante said.
The Archive’s director of library services, Chris Freeland, called the ruling a disappointment.
“We are reviewing the court’s opinion and will continue to defend the rights of libraries to own, lend, and preserve books,” he said in a statement.
PHOENIX (AP) — A prosecutor urged a judge on Thursday to reject former Donald Trump presidential chief of staff Mark Meadows’ bid to move his charges in Arizona’s fake elector case to federal court, saying his actions in trying to overturn the 2020 election results weren’t part of his job at the White House.
Meadows has asked a federal judge to move the case to U.S. District Court, arguing his actions were taken when he was a federal official working as Trump’s chief of staff and that he has immunity under the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, which says federal law trumps state law.
The former chief of staff, who faces charges in Arizona and Georgia in what state authorities alleged was an illegal scheme to overturn the 2020 election results in Trump’s favor, had unsuccessfully tried to move state charges to federal court last year in an election subversion case in Georgia.
Prosecutor Krista Wood said Meadows’ electioneering efforts weren’t part of his official duties at the White House. “He is not authorized to meddle in the state’s administration of elections,” Wood said.
The prosecutor pointed to messages received and sent by Meadows in the weeks after the 2020 election, including a text Meadows sent to then-Republican Gov. Doug Ducey two weeks after Election Day saying former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani was trying to reach the governor to talk about the election results.
Meadows attorney George Terwilliger maintained his client’s messages and actions were part of his official duties and suggested important context about the messages was missing. “I don’t think the court can rely on those text messages,” Terwilliger said.
While not a fake elector in Arizona, prosecutors said Meadows worked with other Trump campaign members to submit names of fake electors from Arizona and other states to Congress in a bid to keep Trump in office despite his November 2020 defeat.
In 2020, President Joe Biden won Arizona by 10,457 votes.
While Democratic Attorney General Kris Mayes’ office had said Meadows missed the deadline for asking a court to move the charges to federal court, Meadows’ attorneys say another federal law allows for cases to be moved to federal court at a later time for good cause.
Terwilliger said he waited to try to move Meadows’ Arizona charges to federal court until after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a July ruling that gave former presidents broad immunity from prosecution. U.S. District Judge John Tuchi, who was nominated to the federal bench by then-President Barack Obama, didn’t say when he would issue his ruling on Meadows’ request.
Last year, Meadows tried to get his Georgia charges moved to federal court, but his request was rejected by a judge, whose ruling was later affirmed by an appeals court. The former chief of staff has since asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the ruling.
The Arizona indictment also says Meadows confided to a White House staff member in early November 2020 that Trump had lost the election. Prosecutors say Meadows also had arranged meetings and calls with state officials to discuss the fake elector conspiracy.
Meadows and other defendants are seeking a dismissal of the Arizona case.
Meadows’ attorneys said nothing their client is alleged to have done in Arizona was criminal. They said the indictment consists of allegations that he received messages from people trying to get ideas in front of Trump — or “seeking to inform Mr. Meadows about the strategy and status of various legal efforts by the president’s campaign.”
In all, 18 Republicans were charged in late April in Arizona’s fake electors case. The defendants include 11 Republicans who had submitted a document falsely claiming Trump had won Arizona, another Trump aide and five lawyers connected to the former president.
In early August, Trump’s campaign attorney Jenna Ellis, who worked closely with Giuliani, signed a cooperation agreement with prosecutors that led to the dismissal of her charges. Republican activist Loraine Pellegrino also became the first person to be convicted in the Arizona case when she pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge and was sentenced to probation.
Meadows and the other remaining defendants have pleaded not guilty to the forgery, fraud and conspiracy charges in Arizona.
Trump wasn’t charged in Arizona, but the indictment refers to him as an unindicted coconspirator.
Eleven people who had been nominated to be Arizona’s Republican electors had met in Phoenix on Dec. 14, 2020, to sign a certificate saying they were “duly elected and qualified” electors and claimed Trump had carried the state in the 2020 election.
A one-minute video of the signing ceremony was posted on social media by the Arizona Republican Party at the time. The document was later sent to Congress and the National Archives, where it was ignored.
Prosecutors in Michigan, Nevada, Georgia and Wisconsin have also filed criminal charges related to the fake electors scheme.
RIO DE JANEIRO — A Brazilian Supreme Court panel on Monday unanimously upheld the decision of one of its justices to block billionaire Elon Musk’s social media platform X nationwide, according to the court’s website.
The broader support among justices undermines the effort by Musk and his supporters to cast Justice Alexandre de Moraes as an authoritarian renegade who is intent on censoring political speech in Brazil.
The panel that voted in a virtual session was comprised of five of the full bench’s 11 justices, including de Moraes, who last Friday ordered the platform blocked for refusing to name a local legal representative, as required by law. It will stay suspended until it complies with his orders and pays outstanding fines that as of last week exceeded $3 million, according to his decision.
The platform has clashed with de Moraes over its reluctance to block users, and has alleged that de Moraes wants an in-country legal representative so that Brazilian authorities can exert leverage over the company by having someone to arrest.
De Moraes also set a daily fine of 50,000 reais ($8,900) for people or companies using virtual private networks, or VPNs, to access X. Some legal experts questioned the grounds for that decision and how it would be enforced, including Brazil’s bar association, which said it would request the Supreme Court review that provision.
But the majority of the panel upheld the VPN fine — with one justice opposing unless users are shown to be using X to commit crimes.
Over the weekend, many X users in Brazil said they felt disconnected from the world and began migrating en masse to alternative platforms, like Bluesky and Threads.
And the suspension has proceeded to set up a showdown between de Moraes and Musk’s satellite internet provider Starlink, which is refusing to enforce the justice’s decision.
“He violated the constitution of Brazil repeatedly and egregiously, after swearing an oath to protect it,” Musk wrote in the hours before the vote, adding a flurry of insults and accusations in the wake of the panel’s vote. On Sunday, Musk announced the creation of an X account to publish the justice’s decisions that he said would show they violated Brazilian law.
But legal experts have said such claims don’t hold water, noting in particular that de Moraes’ peers have repeatedly endorsed his rulings — as they did on Monday. Although his actions are viewed by experts as legal, they have sparked some debate over whether one man has been afforded too much power, or if his rulings should have more transparency.
De Moraes’ decision to quickly refer his order for panel approval served to obtain “collective, more institutional support that attempts to depersonalize the decision,” Conrado Hübner, a constitutional law expert at the University of Sao Paulo, told The Associated Press.
It is standard for a justice to refer such cases to a five-justice panel, Hübner said. In exceptional cases, the justice also could refer the case to the full bench for review. Had de Moraes done the latter, two justices who have questioned his decisions in the past — and were appointed by former right-wing President Jair Bolsonaro — would have had the opportunity to object or hinder the vote’s advance.
X’s block already led de Moraes last week to freeze the Brazilian financial assets of Starlink as a means to force it to cover X’s fines, reasoning that the two companies are part of the same economic group. The company says it has more than 250,000 clients in Brazil.
Legal experts have questioned the legal basis of that move, and Starlink’s law firm Veirano has told the AP it has appealed the freeze. It declined to comment further.
In a show of defiance, Starlink told the telecommunications regulator Anatel that it will not block X access until its financial accounts are unfrozen, Anatel’s press office said in an email to the AP. Starlink didn’t respond to a request for comment.
That means a shutdown of Starlink is likely, although enforcement will be difficult given the company’s satellites aren’t inside national territory, said Luca Belli, coordinator of the Technology and Society Center at the Getulio Vargas Foundation. It is popular in Brazil’s expansive rural and forested areas.
Anatel’s President Carlos Baigorri told local media GloboNews late Sunday afternoon that he has relayed Starlink’s decision to Justice de Moraes.
Baigorri told GloboNews that the “maximum sanction” for a telecom company would be revocation of its license. He said if Starlink loses its license and continues providing service, it would be committing a crime. Anatel could seize equipment from Starlink’s 23 ground stations in Brazil that ensure the quality of its internet service, he said.
“It is highly probable there is a political escalation,” because Starlink is “explicitly refusing to comply with orders, national laws,” said Belli, who is also a professor at the Getulio Vargas Foundation’s law school.
The arguments from Musk, a self-proclaimed “free-speech absolutist,” have found fertile ground with Brazil’s political right, who view de Moraes’ actions as political persecution against Bolsonaro’s supporters.
On Brazilian orders, X previously has shut down accounts including of lawmakers affiliated with Bolsonaro’s right-wing party and far-right activists accused of undermining Brazilian democracy. X’s lawyers in April sent a document to the Supreme Court, saying that since 2019 it had suspended or blocked 226 users.
Bolsonaro and his allies have cheered on Musk for defying de Moraes. Supporters rallied in April along Rio de Janeiro’s Copacabana beach with a giant sign reading “Brazil Thanks Elon Musk.”
Bolsonaro is also the target of a de Moraes probe over whether the former president had a role in inciting an attempted coup to overturn the results of the 2022 election that he lost.
RIO DE JANEIRO — A Brazilian Supreme Court panel on Monday unanimously upheld the decision of one of its justices to block billionaire Elon Musk’s social media platform X nationwide, according to the court’s website.
The broader support among justices undermines the effort by Musk and his supporters to cast Justice Alexandre de Moraes as a renegade and authoritarian censor of political speech.
The panel that voted in a virtual session was comprised of five of the full bench’s 11 justices, including de Moraes, who last Friday ordered the platform blocked for having failed to name a local legal representative as required by law.
X will remain blocked until it complies with his orders and pays outstanding fines that as of last week exceeded $3 million, according to his decision.
De Moraes also set a daily fine of 50,000 reais ($8,900) for people or companies using virtual private networks, or VPNs, to access X. Some legal experts questioned the grounds for that decision and how it would be enforced, including Brazil’s bar association, which said it would request the Supreme Court to review that provision.
But the majority of the panel upheld the VPN fine — with one justice opposing unless users are shown to be using X to commit crimes.
“He violated the constitution of Brazil repeatedly and egregiously, after swearing an oath to protect it,” Musk wrote of de Moraes in the hours before the vote. He also announced Sunday the creation of an X account to publish the justice’s decisions that he said would provide evidence of his claims.
De Moraes’ decision to quickly remit his order for panel approval served to obtain “collective, more institutional support that attempts to depersonalize the decision,” Conrado Hübner, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Sao Paulo, told The Associated Press.
It is standard for the rapporteur to remit a decision to a five-justice panel in such cases, Hübner said. In exceptional cases considered controversial, the justice has the discretion to send it to the full bench for evaluation.
Had de Moraes done the latter, two justices who have questioned his decisions in the past — and were appointed by former far-right President Jair Bolsonaro — would have had the opportunity to object or hinder the vote’s advance.
SAO PAULO — Brazil started blocking Elon Musk’s social media platform X early Saturday, making it largely inaccessible on both the web and through mobile apps after the billionaire refused to name a legal representative to the country.
The move escalates a monthslong feud between Musk and a Brazilian Supreme Court justice over free speech, far-right accounts and misinformation. Justice Alexandre de Moraes ordered the suspension on Friday.
To block X, Brazil’s telecommunications regulator, Anatel, told internet service providers to suspend users’ access to the social media platform. As of Saturday after midnight local time, major operators had begun doing so.
De Moraes had warned Musk on Wednesday night that X could be blocked in Brazil if he failed to comply with his order to name a representative, and established a 24-hour deadline. The company hasn’t had a representative in the country since earlier this month.
“Elon Musk showed his total disrespect for Brazilian sovereignty and, in particular, for the judiciary, setting himself up as a true supranational entity and immune to the laws of each country,” de Moraes wrote in his decision on Friday.
The justice said the platform will stay suspended until it complies with his orders, and also set a daily fine of 50,000 reais ($8,900) for people or companies using VPNs to access it.
In a later ruling, he backtracked on his initial decision to establish a 5-day deadline for internet service providers themselves — and not just the telecommunications regulator — to block access to X, as well as his directive for app stores to remove virtual private networks, or VPNs.
Brazil is one of the biggest markets for X, which has struggled with the loss of advertisers since Musk purchased the former Twitter in 2022. Market research group Emarketer says some 40 million Brazilians, roughly one-fifth of the population, access X at least once per month.
“This is a sad day for X users around the world, especially those in Brazil, who are being denied access to our platform. I wish it did not have to come to this – it breaks my heart,” X’s CEO Linda Yaccarino said Friday night, adding that Brazil is failing to uphold its constitution’s pledge to forbid censorship.
X had posted on its official Global Government Affairs page late Thursday that it expected X to be shut down by de Moraes, “simply because we would not comply with his illegal orders to censor his political opponents.”
“When we attempted to defend ourselves in court, Judge de Moraes threatened our Brazilian legal representative with imprisonment. Even after she resigned, he froze all of her bank accounts,” the company wrote.
X has clashed with de Moraes over its reluctance to comply with orders to block users.
Accounts that the platform previously has shut down on Brazilian orders include lawmakers affiliated with former President Jair Bolsonaro’s right-wing party and activists accused of undermining Brazilian democracy. X’s lawyers in April sent a document to the Supreme Court in April, saying that since 2019 it had suspended or blocked 226 users.
In his decision Friday, de Moraes’ cited Musk’s statements as evidence that X’s conduct “clearly intends to continue to encourage posts with extremism, hate speech and anti-democratic discourse, and to try to withdraw them from jurisdictional control.”
In April, de Moraes included Musk as a target in an ongoing investigation over the dissemination of fake news and opened a separate investigation into the executive for alleged obstruction.
Musk, a self-proclaimed “free speech absolutist,” has repeatedly claimed the justice’s actions amount to censorship, and his argument has been echoed by Brazil’s political right. He has often insulted de Moraes on his platform, characterizing him as a dictator and tyrant.
De Moraes’ defenders have said his actions aimed at X have been lawful, supported by most of the court’s full bench and have served to protect democracy at a time it is imperiled. He wrote Friday that his ruling is based on Brazilian law requiring internet services companies to have representation in the country so they can be notified when there are relevant court decisions and take requisite action — specifying the takedown of illicit content posted by users, and an anticipated churn of misinformation during October municipal elections.
The looming shutdown is not unprecedented in Brazil.
Lone Brazilian judges shut down Meta’s WhatsApp, the nation’s most widely used messaging app, several times in 2015 and 2016 due to the company’s refusal to comply with police requests for user data. In 2022, de Moraes threatened the messaging app Telegram with a nationwide shutdown, arguing it had repeatedly ignored Brazilian authorities’ requests to block profiles and provide information. He ordered Telegram to appoint a local representative; the company ultimately complied and stayed online.
X and its former incarnation, Twitter, have been banned in several countries — mostly authoritarian regimes such as Russia, China, Iran, Myanmar, North Korea, Venezuela and Turkmenistan. Other countries, such as Pakistan, Turkey and Egypt, have also temporarily suspended X before, usually to quell dissent and unrest. Twitter was banned in Egypt after the Arab Spring uprisings, which some dubbed the “Twitter revolution,” but it has since been restored.
A search Friday on X showed hundreds of Brazilian users inquiring about VPNs that could potentially enable them to continue using the platform by making it appear they were logging on from outside the country. It was not immediately clear how Brazilian authorities would police this practice and impose fines cited by de Moraes.
“This is an unusual measure, but its main objective is to ensure that the court order to suspend the platform’s operation is, in fact, effective,” Filipe Medon, a specialist in digital law and professor at the law school of Getulio Vargas Foundation, a university in Rio de Janeiro, told The Associated Press.
Mariana de Souza Alves Lima, known by her handle MariMoon, showed her 1.4 million followers on X where she intends to go, posting a screenshot of rival social network BlueSky.
On Thursday evening, Starlink, Musk’s satellite internet service provider, said on X that de Moraes this week froze its finances, preventing it from doing any transactions in the country where it has more than 250,000 customers.
“This order is based on an unfounded determination that Starlink should be responsible for the fines levied—unconstitutionally—against X. It was issued in secret and without affording Starlink any of the due process of law guaranteed by the Constitution of Brazil. We intend to address the matter legally,” Starlink said in its statement. The law firm representing Starlink told the AP that the company appealed, but wouldn’t make further comment.
Musk replied to people sharing the reports of the freeze, adding insults directed at de Moraes. “This guy @Alexandre is an outright criminal of the worst kind, masquerading as a judge,” he wrote.
Musk later posted on X that SpaceX, which runs Starlink, will provide free internet service in Brazil “until the matter is resolved” since “we cannot receive payment, but don’t want to cut anyone off.”
In his decision, de Moraes said he ordered the freezing of Starlink’s assets, as X didn’t have enough money in its accounts to cover mounting fines, and reasoning that the two companies are part of the same economic group.
While ordering X’s suspension followed warnings and fines and so was appropriate, taking action against Starlink seems “highly questionable,” said Luca Belli, coordinator of the Getulio Vargas Foundation’s Technology and Society Center.
“Yes, of course, they have the same owner, Elon Musk, but it is discretionary to consider Starlink as part of the same economic group as Twitter (X). They have no connection, they have no integration,” Belli said.
___
Ortutay reported from San Francisco and Biller from Rio. AP writer Mauricio Savarese contributed from Sao Paulo.
SAO PAULO — A Brazilian Supreme Court justice on Friday ordered the suspension of Elon Musk’s social media giant X in Brazil after the tech billionaire refused to name a legal representative in the country, according to a copy of his decision.
The move further escalates the monthslong feud between the two men over free speech, far-right accounts and misinformation.
Justice Alexandre de Moraes had warned Musk on Wednesday night that X could be blocked in Brazil if he failed to comply with his order to name a representative, and established a 24-hour deadline. The company hasn’t had a representative in the country since earlier this month.
“Elon Musk showed his total disrespect for Brazilian sovereignty and, in particular, for the judiciary, setting himself up as a true supranational entity and immune to the laws of each country,” de Moraes wrote in his decision.
The justice said the platform will stay suspended until it complies with his orders, and also set a daily fine of 50,000 reais ($8,900) for people or companies using VPNs to access it.
In a later ruling, he backtracked on his initial decision to establish a 5-day deadline for internet service providers themselves — and not just the telecommunications regulator — to block access to X, as well as his directive for app stores to remove virtual private networks, or VPNs.
Brazil’s telecommunications regulator Anatel has 24 hours to comply. The regulator’s chairman Carlos Baigorri told GloboNews channel that the country’s biggest service providers will respond quickly, but added smaller ones might need more time to suspend X from their services.
The full bench of Brazil’s Supreme Court is expected to rule on the case, but no date for deliberations was set.
Brazil is an important market for X, which has struggled with the loss of advertisers since Musk purchased the former Twitter in 2022. Market research group Emarketer says some 40 million Brazilians, roughly one-fifth of the population, access X at least once per month.
X had posted on its official Global Government Affairs page late Thursday that it expected X to be shut down by de Moraes, “simply because we would not comply with his illegal orders to censor his political opponents.”
“When we attempted to defend ourselves in court, Judge de Moraes threatened our Brazilian legal representative with imprisonment. Even after she resigned, he froze all of her bank accounts,” the company wrote. “Our challenges against his manifestly illegal actions were either dismissed or ignored. Judge de Moraes’ colleagues on the Supreme Court are either unwilling or unable to stand up to him.”
X has clashed with de Moraes over its reluctance to comply with orders to block users.
Accounts that the platform previously has shut down on Brazilian orders include lawmakers affiliated with former President Jair Bolsonaro’s right-wing party and activists accused of undermining Brazilian democracy. X’s lawyers in April sent a document to the Supreme Court in April, saying that since 2019 it had suspended or blocked 226 users.
In his decision Friday, de Moraes’ cited Musk’s statements as evidence that X’s conduct “clearly intends to continue to encourage posts with extremism, hate speech and anti-democratic discourse, and to try to withdraw them from jurisdictional control.”
Musk, a self-proclaimed “free speech absolutist,” has repeatedly claimed the justice’s actions amount to censorship, and his argument has been echoed by Brazil’s political right. He has often insulted de Moraes on his platform, characterizing him as a dictator and tyrant.
De Moraes’ defenders have said his actions aimed at X have been lawful, supported by most of the court’s full bench and have served to protect democracy at a time it is imperiled. He wrote Friday that his ruling is based on Brazilian law requiring internet services companies to have representation in the country so they can be notified when there are relevant court decisions and take requisite action — specifying the takedown of illicit content posted by users, and an anticipated churn of misinformation during October municipal elections.
The looming shutdown is not unprecedented in Brazil.
Lone Brazilian judges shut down Meta’s WhatsApp, the nation’s most widely used messaging app, several times in 2015 and 2016 due to the company’s refusal to comply with police requests for user data. In 2022, de Moraes threatened the messaging app Telegram with a nationwide shutdown, arguing it had repeatedly ignored Brazilian authorities’ requests to block profiles and provide information. He ordered Telegram to appoint a local representative; the company ultimately complied and stayed online.
X and its former incarnation, Twitter, have been banned in several countries — mostly authoritarian regimes such as Russia, China, Iran, Myanmar, North Korea, Venezuela and Turkmenistan. Other countries, such as Pakistan, Turkey and Egypt, have also temporarily suspended X before, usually to quell dissent and unrest. Twitter was banned in Egypt after the Arab Spring uprisings, which some dubbed the “Twitter revolution,” but it has since been restored.
Earlier on Friday, a search on X showed hundreds of Brazilian users inquiring about VPNs that could potentially enable them to continue using the platform by making it appear they were logging on from outside the country. It was not immediately clear how Brazilian authorities would police this practice and impose fines cited by de Moraes.
“This is an unusual measure, but its main objective is to ensure that the court order to suspend the platform’s operation is, in fact, effective,” Filipe Medon, a specialist in digital law and professor at the law school of Getulio Vargas Foundation, a university in Rio de Janeiro, told The Associated Press. “As a general rule, there are no provisions in Brazilian law that prevent users from using VPNs, since they are not the subjects of the blocking and suspension orders, but rather the companies.”
Even so, Mariana de Souza Alves Lima, known by her handle MariMoon, showed her 1.4 million followers on X where she intends to go, posting a screenshot of rival social network BlueSky.
X said that it plans to publish what it has called de Moraes’ “illegal demands” and related court filings “in the interest of transparency.”
Also on Thursday evening, Starlink, Musk’s satellite internet service provider, said on X that de Moraes this week froze its finances, preventing it from doing any transactions in the country where it has more than 250,000 customers.
“This order is based on an unfounded determination that Starlink should be responsible for the fines levied—unconstitutionally—against X. It was issued in secret and without affording Starlink any of the due process of law guaranteed by the Constitution of Brazil. We intend to address the matter legally,” Starlink said in its statement. The law firm representing Starlink told the AP that the company appealed, but wouldn’t make further comment.
Another Brazilian Supreme Court Justice, Cristiano Zanin, rejected an appeal by Starlink to unfreeze the company’s bank accounts.
Musk replied to people sharing the reports of the freeze, adding insults directed at de Moraes. “This guy @Alexandre is an outright criminal of the worst kind, masquerading as a judge,” he wrote.
Musk later posted on X that SpaceX, which runs Starlink, will provide free internet service in Brazil “until the matter is resolved” since “we cannot receive payment, but don’t want to cut anyone off.”
In his decision, de Moraes said he ordered the freezing of Starlink’s assets, as X didn’t have enough money in its accounts to cover mounting fines, and reasoning that the two companies are part of the same economic group.
While ordering X’s suspension followed warnings and fines and so was appropriate, taking action against Starlink seems “highly questionable,” said Luca Belli, coordinator of the Getulio Vargas Foundation’s Technology and Society Center.
“Yes, of course, they have the same owner, Elon Musk, but it is discretionary to consider Starlink as part of the same economic group as Twitter (X). They have no connection, they have no integration,” Belli said.
___
Ortutay reported from San Francisco and Biller from Rio. AP writer Mauricio Savarese contributed from Sao Paulo.
ANNAPOLIS, Md. — A 2022 court hearing that freed Adnan Syed from prison violated the legal rights of the victim’s family and must be redone, Maryland’s Supreme Court ruled Friday, marking the latest development in the ongoing legal saga that gained global attention years ago through the hit podcast “Serial.”
The 4-3 ruling means Syed’s murder conviction remains reinstated for the foreseeable future. It comes about 11 months after the court heard arguments last October in a case that has been fraught with legal twists and divided court rulings since Syed was convicted in 2000 of killing his high school ex-girlfriend Hae Min Lee.
Syed has been free since October 2022, and while the Supreme Court’s ruling reinstates his convictions, the justices did not order any changes to his release.
The court concluded that in an effort to remedy what was perceived to be an injustice to Syed, prosecutors and a lower court “worked an injustice” against Lee’s brother, Young Lee. The court ruled that Lee was not treated with “dignity, respect, and sensitivity,” because he was not given reasonable notice of the hearing that resulted in Syed being freed.
The court ruled that the remedy was “to reinstate Mr. Syed’s convictions and to remand the case to the circuit court for further proceedings.”
The court also said Lee would be afforded reasonable notice of the new hearing, “sufficient to provide Mr. Lee with a reasonable opportunity to attend such a hearing in person,” and for him or his counsel to be heard.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Michele Hotten wrote that “this case exists as a procedural zombie.”
“It has been reanimated, despite its expiration,” Hotten wrote. “The doctrine of mootness was designed to prevent such judicial necromancy.”
The latest issue in the case pitted recent criminal justice reform efforts against the legal rights of crime victims and their families, whose voices are often at odds with a growing movement to acknowledge and correct systemic issues, including historic racism, police misconduct and prosecutorial missteps.
The panel of seven judges weighed the extent to which crime victims have a right to participate in hearings where a conviction could be vacated. To that end, the court considered whether to uphold a lower appellate court ruling in 2023 in favor of the Lee family. It reinstated Syed’s murder conviction a year after a judge granted a request from Baltimore prosecutors to vacate it because of flawed evidence.
Syed, 43, has maintained his innocence and has often expressed concern for Lee’s surviving relatives. The teenage girl was found strangled to death and buried in an unmarked grave in 1999. Syed was sentenced to life in prison, plus 30 years.
Syed was released from prison in September 2022, when a Baltimore judge overturned his conviction after city prosecutors found flaws in the evidence.
However, in March 2023, the Appellate Court of Maryland, the state’s intermediate appellate court, ordered a redo of the hearing that won Syed his freedom and reinstated his conviction. The court said the victim’s family didn’t receive adequate notice to attend the hearing in person, violating their right under state law to be “treated with dignity and respect.”
Syed’s lawyer Erica Suter has argued that the state did meet its obligation by allowing Young Lee to participate in the hearing via video conference.
Syed appealed his conviction’s reinstatement, and the Lee family also appealed to the state’s highest court, contending that crime victims should be given a larger role in the process of vacating a conviction.
Syed has remained free as the latest set of appeals wind their way through the state court system.
During oral arguments last year, his attorneys argued the Lee family’s appeal was moot because prosecutors decided not to charge him again after his conviction was vacated. And even if her brother’s rights were violated, the attorneys argued, he hasn’t demonstrated whether the alleged violation would have changed the outcome of the hearing.
This wasn’t the first time Maryland’s highest court has taken up Syed’s protracted legal odyssey.
In 2019, a divided court ruled 4-3 to deny Syed a new trial. A lower court had ordered a retrial in 2016 on grounds that Syed’s attorney, Cristina Gutierrez, didn’t contact an alibi witness and provided ineffective counsel. Gutierrez died in 2004.
In November 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the decision by Maryland’s top court.
More recently, Baltimore prosecutors reexamined Syed’s files under a Maryland law targeting so-called “juvenile lifers” because he was 17 when Hae Min Lee’s body was found. Prosecutors uncovered numerous problems, including alternative suspects and the unreliable evidence presented at trial.
Instead of reconsidering his sentence, prosecutors filed a motion to vacate Syed’s conviction entirely. They later chose not to recharge him after receiving the results of DNA testing that was conducted using more modern testing techniques than initially conducted. DNA recovered from Lee’s shoes excluded Syed as a suspect, prosecutors said.
Syed’s case was chronicled in the “Serial” podcast, which debuted in 2014 and drew millions of listeners who became armchair detectives as the series analyzed the case. The show transformed the true-crime genre as it shattered podcast-streaming and downloading records, revealing little-known evidence and raising new questions about the case.
