ReportWire

Tag: Courts

  • YouTube blocks Hong Kong protest anthem after court injunction bans song in the city

    YouTube blocks Hong Kong protest anthem after court injunction bans song in the city

    [ad_1]

    HONG KONG — YouTube has blocked access to videos of a protest song in Hong Kong, days after court approved an injunction banning the song in the city.

    “Glory to Hong Kong” was an anthem of anti-government protests in 2019. YouTube said that it would comply with a removal order and block access to over 32 YouTube videos of the song that were deemed to be “prohibited publications” under the injunction.

    Attempts to access the YouTube videos from Hong Kong on Wednesday showed that they were unavailable. A message showed saying that “This content is not available on this country domain due to a court order.”

    In approving the government’s application to ban the song, the court agreed it could be “weaponized” and used to incite secession.

    “We are disappointed by the court’s decision but are complying with its removal order by blocking access to the listed videos for viewers in Hong Kong,” YouTube, which is owned by Alphabet Inc., said in an emailed statement.

    “We’ll continue to consider our options for an appeal, to promote access to information,” the company said, adding that it shared the concerns of human rights organizations about the chilling effect the ban would have on free expression online.

    Links to the 32 videos on YouTube will also not show up on Google Search for users in Hong Kong, according to YouTube.

    George Chen, co-chair of digital practice at Asia Group, a Washington-headquartered business and policy consultancy, said it is worth watching how aggressively Hong Kong authorities will be in ordering internet platforms to remove the song.

    Chen, who was the former head of public policy for Greater China at Meta, said that if the government begins sending platforms hundreds of links to remove every day, that would likely undermine investor confidence in Hong Kong.

    “That will hurt Hong Kong’s reputation as a leading financial center because we know how important a free flow of data and information means to a financial center,” he said. “So the government should be very careful and be aware of some unintended consequences that may impact its economic recovery and investors’ confidence.”

    Internet and social media platforms such as YouTube typically have policies for removal requests from governments.

    “Glory to Hong Kong” was often sung by demonstrators during massive anti-government protests in 2019. The song was later mistakenly played as the city’s anthem at international sporting events, instead of China’s “March of the Volunteers,” in mix-ups that upset city officials.

    Authorities earlier arrested some residents who played the song in public under other offenses, such as playing a musical instrument in public without a permit, local media reported.

    Critics have said prohibiting broadcast or distribution of the song further reduces freedom of expression since Beijing launched a crackdown in the former British colony following the 2019 protests. They have also warned the ban might disrupt the operation of tech giants and hurt the city’s appeal as a business center.

    ___

    Associated Press writer Kanis Leung contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • A French court clears director Roman Polanski of defaming a British actor

    A French court clears director Roman Polanski of defaming a British actor

    [ad_1]

    PARIS — PARIS (AP) —

    A French court acquitted filmmaker Roman Polanski Tuesday of defaming a British actor whom he described as a liar after she accused him of sexual assault. The case stems from a 2019 interview with Paris Match magazine, where Polanski allegedly called Charlotte Lewis a liar following her accusations.

    The court’s ruling did not address the truth of the rape allegation but focused solely on whether Polanski’s comments in the interview constituted defamation against Lewis. Polanski denied the charges.

    The verdict was delivered Tuesday afternoon in a Paris court.

    Lewis said she felt let down by the verdict and would appeal.

    “I feel sad,” she said. “For us, it’s not over.”

    Polanski was not in court. His lawyer Delphine Meillet called him to announce the news. She said the court recognized his right to challenge people who make accusations against him. She noted that the verdict came on the opening day of the Cannes Film Festival, calling it “a symbolic day.”

    “It’s a victory for the rights of the defense,” the lawyer said.

    At the heart of the accusations was that Polanski rebutted Lewis’s allegations of sexual assault in the 2019 interview with Paris Match, describing them as a “heinous lie.” Lewis had contended the remarks were defamatory, launching a legal battle against the 90-year-old director, known for classics such as “Rosemary’s Baby,” “Chinatown,” and “The Pianist.”

    Lewis, who first made her allegations public in 2010, claimed Polanski “sexually abused me in the worst possible way when I was just 16 years old,” referring to an incident in 1983 in Paris during a casting session for his film “Pirates.”

    The filmmaker has faced several other accusations of sexual assault that allegedly occurred over several decades, including a notable case from 1977 where he was charged with the rape of a 13-year-old in the United States. He pleaded guilty but fled to Europe in 1978 before sentencing could take place.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Florida mom claims son’s skull, spine found in medical examiner’s bin nearly 20 years later

    Florida mom claims son’s skull, spine found in medical examiner’s bin nearly 20 years later

    [ad_1]

    LAKE COUNTY, Fla. – A Florida mother announced she intends to file a lawsuit against the Lake County Medical Examiner’s Office after her son’s skull and spine were found in a bin inside the building.

    According to her attorney, the mother — identified as Ruthel Forbes — received a message from the office earlier this year about the discovery.

    “They found her son, Cedric Wayne McFadden’s skull and part of his spine in a bin, in their building, (nearly) 20 years after they were allegedly released to Summer’s Funeral Home in Ocala, Florida on June 15, 2005,” a release from the attorney reads.

    In 2005, the Ocala StarBanner reported that McFadden was shot and killed during a robbery. David Lee — who was later convicted in McFadden’s murder — reportedly led investigators to McFadden’s body, which was left in a pond behind Lee’s home near Belleview.

    Photo of Cedric Wayne McFadden shared during a news conference on Monday (Copyright 2024 by WKMG ClickOrlando – All rights reserved.)

    With McFadden’s body having been heavily decomposed by that point, the family didn’t do a viewing, so they never saw his body.

    Instead, the Medical Examiner’s Office allegedly released his body to an Ocala funeral home.

    [EXCLUSIVE: Become a News 6 Insider (it’s FREE) | PINIT! Share your photos]

    But during a news conference on Monday, McFadden’s sister Jacqueline Forshee said she received a call on her phone from the Medical Examiner’s Office on Feb. 11 asking for Forbes.

    “She asked me if I knew Cedric McFadden and did I know how she could get in contact with Ruth Forbes,” Forshee said. “And I said, ‘Yes, I do know him; that is my brother. And I am actually with my mother at church right now.”

    Jacqueline Forshee (center) and Ruth Forbes (right) during Monday’s news conference (Copyright 2024 by WKMG ClickOrlando – All rights reserved.)

    Forshee said she learned that her family hadn’t actually buried all of McFadden following his murder, as his skull and spine had just been uncovered at the office.

    While the Medical Examiner’s Office provided them with options, Forshee added, the office also “rushed us to make a decision.”

    “It took the bandage off of a wound, obviously. It caused a lot of stress…” she explained. “We had to go through a burial twice, which I feel was unnecessary.”

    According to Forshee, the family didn’t want to unearth McFadden’s casket, so they had the newly discovered remains sealed in a vault near the original casket.

    The vault with which the family buried the newly discovered remains (Ortavia Simon)

    Forshee also claimed that the Medical Examiner’s Office provided no reason for the error.

    “My first question to her was, ‘How do I know I buried my brother the first time?’ If that was truly him that we buried?” she said.

    The attorney’s release accuses the Medical Examiner’s Office of the following:

    • Failing to use ordinary care to keep McFadden’s remains intact or providing all body parts to Summer’s Funeral Home

    • Failing to follow all of Forbes’ other instructions as the legally authorized person per state law

    • Failing to maintain proper records pertaining to McFadden’s remains

    • Failing to employ policies and procedures to ensure McFadden’s remains were properly released to Forbes per state law

    As a result, the release says that Forbes intends to bring legal action against the Lake County Medical Examiner by Nov. 3.

    News 6 reached out to the Lake County Medical Examiner’s Office for a statement and is awaiting a response.


    Get today’s headlines in minutes with Your Florida Daily:

    Copyright 2024 by WKMG ClickOrlando – All rights reserved.

    [ad_2]

    Anthony Talcott

    Source link

  • Cohen: Trump involved in all aspects of hush money scheme

    Cohen: Trump involved in all aspects of hush money scheme

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — Donald Trump was intimately involved with all aspects of a scheme to stifle stories about sex that threatened to torpedo his 2016 campaign, his former lawyer said Monday in matter-of-fact testimony that went to the heart of the former president’s hush money trial.

    “Everything required Mr. Trump’s sign-off,” said Michael Cohen, Trump’s fixer-turned-foe and the prosecution’s star witness in a case now entering its final, pivotal stretch.

    In hours of highly anticipated testimony, Cohen placed Trump at the center of the hush money plot, saying the then-candidate had promised to reimburse the lawyer for the money he fronted and was constantly updated about behind-the-scenes efforts to bury stories feared to be harmful to the campaign.

    “We need to stop this from getting out,” Cohen quoted Trump as telling him in reference to porn actor Stormy Daniels’ account of a sexual encounter with Trump a decade earlier. The then-candidate was especially anxious about how the story would affect his standing with female voters.

    A similar episode occurred when Cohen alerted Trump that a Playboy model was alleging that she and Trump had an extramarital affair. “Make sure it doesn’t get released,” was Cohen’s message to Trump, the lawyer said. The woman, Karen McDougal, was paid $150,000 in an arrangement that was made after Trump received a “complete and total update on everything that transpired.”

    “What I was doing, I was doing at the direction of and benefit of Mr. Trump,” Cohen testified.

    Trump has pleaded not guilty and denied having sexual encounters with the two women.

    Cohen is by far the prosecution’s most important witness, and though his testimony lacked the electricity that defined Daniels’ turn on the stand last week, he nonetheless linked Trump directly to the payments and helped illuminate some of the drier evidence such as text messages and phone logs that jurors had previously seen.

    The testimony of a witness with such intimate knowledge of Trump’s activities could heighten the legal exposure of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee if jurors deem him sufficiently credible. But prosecutors’ reliance on a witness with such a checkered past — Cohen pleaded guilty to federal charges related to the payments — also carries sizable risks with a jury and could be a boon to Trump politically as he fundraises off his legal woes and paints the case as the product of a tainted criminal justice system.

    The men, once so close that Cohen boasted that he would “take a bullet” for Trump, had no visible interaction inside the courtroom. The sedate atmosphere was a marked contrast from their last courtroom faceoff, when Trump walked out of the courtroom in October after his lawyer finished questioning Cohen during his civil fraud trial.

    This time around, Trump sat at the defense table with his eyes closed for long stretches of testimony as Cohen recounted his decade-long career as a senior Trump Organization executive, doing work that by his own admission sometimes involved lying and bullying others on his boss’s behalf.

    Jurors had previously heard from others about the tabloid industry practice of “catch-and-kill,” in which rights to a story are purchased so that it can then be quashed. But Cohen’s testimony, which continues Tuesday, is crucial to prosecutors because of his direct communication with the then-candidate about embarrassing stories he was scrambling to suppress.

    Cohen also matters because the reimbursements he received from a $130,000 hush money payment to Daniels, which prosecutors say was meant to buy her silence in advance of the election, form the basis of 34 felony counts charging Trump with falsifying business records. Prosecutors say the reimbursements were logged, falsely, as legal expenses to conceal the payments’ true purpose. Defense lawyers say the payments to Cohen were properly categorized as legal expenses.

    Under questioning from a prosecutor, Cohen detailed the steps he took to mask the payments. When he opened a bank account to pay Daniels, an action he said he told Trump he was taking, he told the bank it was for a new limited liability corporation but withheld the actual purpose.

    “I’m not sure they would’ve opened it,” he said, if they knew it was ”to pay off an adult film star for a nondisclosure agreement.”

    To establish Trump’s familiarity with the payments, Cohen told the jury that Trump had promised to reimburse him. The two men even discussed with Allen Weisselberg, a former Trump Organization chief financial officer, how the reimbursements would be paid as legal services over monthly installments, Cohen testified.

    And though Trump’s lawyers have said he acted to protect his family from salacious stories, Cohen described Trump as preoccupied instead by the impact they would have on the campaign.

    He said Trump even sought to delay finalizing the Daniels transaction until after Election Day so he wouldn’t have to pay her.

    “Because,” Cohen testified, “after the election it wouldn’t matter” to Trump.

    Cohen also gave jurors an insider account of his negotiations with David Pecker, the then-publisher of the National Enquirer, who was such a close Trump ally that Pecker told Cohen his publication maintained a “file drawer or a locked drawer” where files related to Trump were kept.

    That effort took on added urgency following the October 2016 disclosure of an “Access Hollywood” recording in which Trump was heard boasting about grabbing women sexually.

    The Daniels payment was finalized several weeks after that revelation, but Monday’s testimony also centered on a deal earlier that fall with McDougal.

    Cohen testified that he went to Trump immediately after the National Enquirer alerted him to a story about the alleged McDougal affair. “Make sure it doesn’t get released,” he said Trump told him.

    Trump checked in with Pecker about the matter, asking him how “things were going” with it, Cohen said. Pecker responded, ‘We have this under control, and we’ll take care of this,” Cohen testified.

    Cohen also said he was with Trump as Trump spoke to Pecker on a speakerphone in his Trump Tower office.

    “David had stated that it’s going to cost them $150,000 to control the story,” Cohen said. He quoted Trump as saying: “No problem, I will take care of it,” which Cohen interpreted to mean that the payment would be reimbursed.

    To lay the foundation that the deals were done with Trump’s endorsement, prosecutors elicited testimony from Cohen designed to show Trump as a hands-on manager. Acting on Trump’s behalf, Cohen said, he sometimes lied and bullied others, including reporters.

    “When he would task you with something, he would then say, ‘Keep me informed. Let me know what’s going on,’” Cohen testified. He said that was especially true “if there was a matter that was troubling to him.”

    Defense lawyers have teed up a bruising cross-examination of Cohen, telling jurors during opening statements that he’s an “admitted liar” with an “obsession to get President Trump.”

    Prosecutors aim to blunt those attacks by acknowledging Cohen’s past crimes to jurors and by relying on other witnesses whose accounts, they hope, will buttress Cohen’s testimony. They include a lawyer who negotiated the hush money payments on behalf of Daniels and McDougal, as well as Pecker and Daniels.

    After Cohen’s home and office were raided by the FBI in 2018, Trump showered him with affection on social media and predicted that Cohen would not “flip.” Months later, Cohen did exactly that, pleading guilty to federal campaign-finance charges.

    Besides pleading guilty to the hush money payments, Cohen later admitted lying to Congress about a Moscow real estate project that he had pursued on Trump’s behalf during the heat of the 2016 campaign. He was sentenced to three years in prison, but spent much of it in home confinement.

    [ad_2]

    By MICHAEL R. SISAK, JILL COLVIN, ERIC TUCKER and JAKE OFFENHARTZ – Associated Press

    Source link

  • Protest song ‘Glory to Hong Kong’ now banned in city after appeals court overturns ruling

    Protest song ‘Glory to Hong Kong’ now banned in city after appeals court overturns ruling

    [ad_1]

    HONG KONG — An appeals court on Wednesday granted the Hong Kong government’s request to ban a popular protest song, overturning an earlier ruling and deepening concerns over the erosion of freedoms in the once-freewheeling global financial hub.

    “Glory to Hong Kong” was often sung by demonstrators during huge anti-government protests in 2019. The song was later mistakenly played as the city’s anthem at international sporting events, instead of China’s “March of the Volunteers,” in mix-ups that upset city officials.

    It was the first time a song has been banned in the city since Britain handed the territory back to Chinese rule in 1997.

    Critics have said prohibiting broadcast or distribution of the song further reduces freedom of expression since Beijing launched a crackdown in Hong Kong following the 2019 protests. They have also warned the ban might disrupt the operation of tech giants and hurt the city’s appeal as a business center.

    Judge Jeremy Poon wrote that the composer intended for the song to be a “weapon,” pointing to its power in arousing emotions among some residents of the city.

    “We accept the assessment of the executive that prosecutions alone are clearly not adequate to tackle the acute criminal problems and that there is a compelling need for an injunction,” he said.

    He said the injunction was necessary to persuade internet platform operators to remove “problematic videos in connection with the song” from their platforms. The operators have indicated they are ready to accede to the government’s request if there is a court order, he added.

    The ban would target anyone who broadcast or distributed the song to advocate for the separation of Hong Kong from China. It would also prohibit any actions that misrepresent the song as the national anthem with the intent to insult the anthem.

    The song can still be played if it is for lawful journalistic and academic activities.

    Failure to comply with the court order may be considered as contempt of court and could be liable for a fine or imprisonment.

    Authorities have previously arrested some residents who played the song in public under other offenses, such as playing a musical instrument in public without a permit, local media reported.

    As of midafternoon on Wednesday, “Glory to Hong Kong,” whose artist is credited as “Thomas and the Hong Kong people,” was still available on Spotify and Apple Music in both English and Cantonese. A search on YouTube for the song also displayed multiple videos and renditions.

    Google said in an email to the AP that it was “reviewing the court’s judgment.” Spotify and Apple did not immediately comment.

    The U.S. remained seriously concerned about the erosion of protections for human rights and fundamental freedoms in Hong Kong after the ruling, State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said. “And the decision to ban this song is the latest blow to the international reputation of a city that previously prided itself on having an independent judiciary protecting the free exchange of information, ideas and goods,” he said in Washington.

    George Chen, co-chair of digital practice at The Asia Group, a Washington-headquartered business and policy consultancy, said it would be most practical for tech companies to restrict access to the content in question in a certain region to comply with the order.

    Chen said he hoped such bans will not become “the new normal” and establish a precedent. “This will get people really worried about how free Hong Kong’s internet will be like tomorrow,” he said.

    Beijing imposed a sweeping national security law in 2020 to quell the months-long unrest. That law was used to arrest many of the city’s leading pro-democracy activists. In March, the city enacted a home-grown security law, deepening fears that the city’s Western-style civil liberties would be further curtailed. The two laws typically target more serious criminal acts.

    After the judgement was handed down, Lin Jian, a spokesperson for China’s Foreign Ministry, said stopping anyone from using the song to incite division and insult the national anthem is a necessary measure for the city to maintain national security.

    Hong Kong’s Secretary for Justice Paul Lam insisted the injunction was not aimed at restricting the normal operation of internet service providers. He said the government would ask the providers to remove related content in accordance with the injunction.

    Lam argued that the acts covered by the ban could be constituted as criminal offenses even before the court order, and that the scope of the injunction was “extremely narrow.”

    But Eric Lai, a research fellow at Georgetown Center for Asian Law, said that even though judicial deference to the executive on national security matters is common in other jurisdictions, the court has failed to balance the protection of citizens’ fundamental rights including free expression.

    “It disappointingly agreed to use civil proceedings to aid the implementation of national security law,” he said.

    Human rights group Amnesty International described the injunction as a “senseless attack” on freedom of expression and a violation of international human rights law.

    “Today’s appeal victory for the government – after a lower court ruled against it last year – is a worrying sign of the authorities’ growing unwillingness to respect human rights and uphold their obligations,” said Amnesty International’s China Director Sarah Brooks.

    Brooks called on authorities to end attempts to stifle rights in the name of national security.

    The government went to the court last year after Google resisted pressure to display China’s national anthem as the top result in searches for the city’s anthem instead of the protest song. A lower court rejected its initial bid last July, and the development was widely seen as a setback for officials seeking to crush dissidents following the protests.

    The government’s appeal argued that if the executive authority considered a measure necessary, the court should allow it unless it considered it will have no effect, according to a legal document on the government’s website.

    The government had already asked schools to ban the protest song on campuses. It previously said it respected freedoms protected by the city’s constitution, “but freedom of speech is not absolute.”

    ___

    Associated Press writer Zen Soo contributed to this report

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 9 of 10 wrongful death suits over Astroworld crowd surge have been settled: lawyer

    9 of 10 wrongful death suits over Astroworld crowd surge have been settled: lawyer

    [ad_1]

    HOUSTON — Nine of the 10 wrongful death lawsuits filed after a deadly crowd surge at the 2021 Astroworld music festival have been settled, including one that was set to go to trial this week, an attorney said Wednesday.

    Jury selection had been set to begin Tuesday in the wrongful death suit filed the family of Madison Dubiski, a 23-year-old Houston resident who was one of 10 people killed during the crowd crush at the Nov. 5, 2021, concert by rap superstar Travis Scott.

    But Neal Manne, an attorney for Live Nation, the festival’s promoter and one of those being sued along with Scott, said during a court hearing Wednesday that only one wrongful death lawsuit remained pending and the other nine have been settled, including the one filed by Dubiski’s family.

    Noah Wexler, an attorney for Dubiski’s family, confirmed during the court hearing that their case “is resolved in its entirety.”

    Terms of the settlements were confidential and attorneys declined to comment after the court hearing because of a gag order in the case.

    “Mr. Scott is grateful that a resolution has been reached without the need for a trial,” said Ted Anastasiou, a representative for the rapper. “The confidential agreement will honor Madison Dubiski’s legacy and promote improvements for concert safety.”

    After Dubiski’s death, her family started a foundation called Pink Bows that’s focused on improving safety at outdoor concerts and similar events.

    The one wrongful death lawsuit that remains pending was filed by the family of 9-year-old Ezra Blount, the youngest person killed during the concert. Attorneys in the litigation were set to meet next week to discuss when the lawsuit filed by Blount’s family could be set for trial.

    “This case is ready for trial,” Scott West, an attorney for Blount’s family, said in court.

    But Manne said he and the lawyers for other defendants being sued were not ready.

    State District Judge Kristen Hawkins said she planned to discuss the Blount case at next week’s hearing along with potential trials related to the injury cases filed after the deadly concert.

    Hawkins said that if the Blount family’s lawsuit is not settled, she is inclined to schedule that as the next trial instead of an injury case.

    More than 4,000 plaintiffs filed hundreds of lawsuits after the concert. Manne said about 2,400 injury cases remain pending.

    The announcement that nearly all of the wrongful death lawsuits have been settled came after the trial in Dubiski’s case was put on hold last week. Apple Inc., which livestreamed Scott’s concert and was one of the more than 20 defendants being sued by Dubiski’s family, had appealed a court ruling that denied its request to be dismissed from the case. An appeals court granted Apple a stay in the case.

    In the days after the trial stay, attorneys for Dubiski’s family settled their lawsuit with all the defendants in the case, including Apple, Scott and Live Nation, the world’s largest live entertainment company.

    At least four wrongful death lawsuits had previously been settled and announced in court records. But Wednesday was the first time that lawyers in the litigation had given an update that nine of the 10 wrongful death lawsuits had been resolved.

    Lawyers for Dubiski’s family as well as attorneys representing the various other plaintiffs have alleged in court filings that the deaths and hundreds of injuries at the concert were caused by negligent planning and a lack of concern over capacity and safety at the event.

    Those killed, who ranged in age from 9 to 27, died from compression asphyxia, which an expert likened to being crushed by a car.

    Scott, Live Nation and the others who’ve been sued have denied these claims, saying safety was their No. 1 concern. They said what happened could not have been foreseen.

    After a police investigation, a grand jury last year declined to indict Scott, along with five others connected to the festival.

    ___

    Follow Juan A. Lozano: https://twitter.com/juanlozano70

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • This student was allegedly suspended for saying ‘illegal aliens.’ Did that violate the First Amendment?

    This student was allegedly suspended for saying ‘illegal aliens.’ Did that violate the First Amendment?

    [ad_1]

    A 16-year-old boy has kicked off a free speech debate—one that’s already attracting spectators beyond his North Carolina county—after he was suspended for allegedly “making a racially insensitive remark that caused a class disturbance.”

    The racially insensitive remark: referring to undocumented immigrants as “illegal aliens.” Invoking that term would produce the beginning of a legal odyssey, still in its nascent stages, in the form of a federal lawsuit arguing that Central Davidson High School Assistant Principal Eric Anderson violated Christian McGhee’s free speech rights for temporarily barring him from class over a dispute about offensive language.

    What constitutes offensive speech, of course, depends on who is evaluating. During an April English lesson, McGhee says he sought clarification on a vocabulary word: aliens. “Like space aliens,” he asked, “or illegal aliens without green cards?” In response, a Hispanic student—another minor whom the lawsuit references under the pseudonym “R.”—reportedly joked that he would “kick [McGhee’s] ass.” 

    The exchange prompted a meeting with Anderson, the assistant principal. “Mr. Anderson would later recall telling [McGhee] that it would have been more ‘respectful’ for [McGhee] to phrase his question by referring to ‘those people’ who ‘need a green card,’” McGhee’s complaint notes. “[McGhee] and R. have a good relationship. R. confided in [McGhee] that he was not ‘crying’ in his meeting with Anderson”—the principal allegedly claimed R. was indeed in tears over the exchange—”nor was he ‘upset’ or ‘offended’ by [McGhee’s] question. R. said, ‘If anyone is racist, it is [Mr. Anderson] since he asked me why my Spanish grade is so low’—an apparent reference to R.’s ethnicity.”

    McGhee’s peer received a short in-school suspension, while McGhee was barred from campus for three days. He was not permitted an appeal, per the school district’s policy, which forecloses that avenue if a suspension is less than 10 days. And while a three-day suspension probably doesn’t sound like it would induce the sky to fall, McGhee’s suit notes that he hopes to secure an athletic scholarship for college, which may now be in jeopardy.

    So the question of the hour: If the facts are as McGhee construed them, did Anderson violate the 16-year-old’s First Amendment rights? In terms of case law, the answer is a little more nebulous than you might expect. But it still seems that vindication is a likely outcome (and, at least in my opinion, rightfully so). 

    Where the judges fall may come down to a 60s-era ruling—Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District—in which the Supreme Court sided with two students who wore black armbands to their public school in protest of the Vietnam War. “It can hardly be argued,” wrote Justice Abe Fortas for the majority, “that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

    The Tinker decision carved out an exception: Schools can indeed seek to discourage and punish “actually or potentially disruptive conduct.” Potentially is a key word here, as Vikram David Amar, a professor of law at U.C. Davis, and Jason Mazzone, a professor of law at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, point out in Justia. In other words, under that decision, the disruption doesn’t actually have to materialize, just as, true to the name, an attempted murder does not materialize into an actual murder. But just as the government has a vested interest in punishing attempted crimes, so too can schools nip attempted disruptions in the bud.

    “Yet all of this points up some problems with the Tinker disruption standard itself,” write Amar and Mazzone. “What if the likelihood of disruption exists only by virtue of an ignorance or misunderstanding or hypersensitivity or idiosyncrasy on the part of (even a fair number of) people who hear the remark? Wouldn’t allowing a school to punish the speaker under those circumstances amount to a problematic heckler’s veto?”

    That would seem especially relevant here for a few reasons. The first: If McGhee’s account of his interaction with Anderson is truthful, then it was essentially Anderson who retroactively conjured a disruption that, per both McGhee and R., didn’t actually occur in any meaningful way. In some sense, a disruption did come to fruition, and it was allegedly manufactured by the person who did the punishing, not the ones who were punished.

    But the second question is the more significant one: If McGhee’s conduct—merely mentioning “illegal aliens”—is found to qualify as potentially disturbance-inducing, then wouldn’t any controversial topic be fair game for public schools to censor? If a “disruption” is defined as anything that might offend, then we’re in trouble, as the Venn diagram of “things we all agree on as a nation” is essentially two lonely circles at this point. That is especially difficult to reconcile with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Tinker, which supposedly exists as a bulwark against state-sanctioned viewpoint discrimination and censorship.

    It is also difficult to reconcile with the fact that, up until a few years ago, “illegal alien” was an official term the government used to describe undocumented immigrants. The Library of Congress stopped using the term in 2016, and President Joe Biden signed an executive order advising the federal government not to use the descriptor in 2021. To argue that three years later the term is now so offensive that a 16-year-old should know not to invoke it requires living in an alternate reality.

    Those who prefer to opt for less-charged descriptors over “illegal alien”—I count myself in that camp—should also hope to see McGhee vindicated if his account withstands scrutiny in court. Most everything today, it seems, is political, which means a student with a more liberal-leaning lexicon could very well be the next one suspended from school.

    [ad_2]

    Billy Binion

    Source link

  • TikTok sues US to block law that could ban the social media platform

    TikTok sues US to block law that could ban the social media platform

    [ad_1]

    TikTok and its Chinese parent company filed a lawsuit Tuesday challenging a new American law that would ban the popular video-sharing app in the U.S. unless it’s sold to an approved buyer, saying it unfairly singles out the platform and is an unprecedented attack on free speech.

    In its lawsuit, ByteDance says the new law vaguely paints its ownership of TikTok as a national security threat in order to circumvent the First Amendment, despite no evidence that the company poses a threat. It also says the law is so “obviously unconstitutional” that its sponsors are instead portraying it as a way to regulate TikTok’s ownership.

    “For the first time in history, Congress has enacted a law that subjects a single, named speech platform to a permanent, nationwide ban, and bars every American from participating in a unique online community with more than 1 billion people worldwide,” ByteDance asserts in the lawsuit filed in a Washington appeals court.

    The law, which President Joe Biden signed as part of a larger foreign aid package, marks the first time the U.S. has singled out a social media company for a potential ban, which free speech advocates say is what would be expected from repressive regimes such as those in Iran and China.

    The lawsuit is the latest turn in what’s shaping up to be a protracted legal fight over TikTok’s future in the United States — and one that could end up before the Supreme Court. If TikTok loses, it says it would be forced to shut down next year.

    The law requires ByteDance to sell the platform to a U.S.-approved buyer within nine months. If a sale is already in progress, the company would get another three months to complete the deal. ByteDance has said it doesn’t plan to sell TikTok. But even if it wanted to divest, the company would need Beijing’s blessing. According to the lawsuit, the Chinese government has “made clear” that it wouldn’t allow ByteDance to include the algorithm that populates users’ feeds and has been the “key to the success of TikTok in the United States.”

    TikTok and ByteDance say the new law leaves them with no choice but to shut down by next Jan. 19 because continuing to operate in the U.S. wouldn’t be commercially, technologically or legally possible. They also say it would be impossible for ByteDance to divest its U.S. TikTok platform as a separate entity from the rest of TikTok, which has 1 billion users worldwide — most of them outside of the United States. A U.S.-only TikTok would operate as an island that’s detached from the rest of the world, the lawsuit argues.

    The suit also paints divestment as a technological impossibility, since the law requires all of TikTok’s millions of lines of software code to be wrested from ByteDance so that there would be no “operational relationship” between the Chinese company and the new U.S. app.

    The companies argue that they should be protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of expression and are seeking a declaratory judgment that it is unconstitutional.

    The Justice Department declined to comment on the suit Tuesday. And White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre declined to engage on questions about why the president continues to use TikTok for his political activities, deferring to the campaign.

    Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, an Illinois Democrat who is the ranking member of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, issued a statement Tuesday defending the new law.

    “This is the only way to address the national security threat posed by ByteDance’s ownership of apps like TikTok. Instead of continuing its deceptive tactics, it’s time for ByteDance to start the divestment process,” he said.

    ByteDance will first likely ask a court to temporarily block the federal law from taking effect, said Gus Hurwitz, a senior fellow at the University of Pennsylvania’s Carey Law School who isn’t involved in the case. And the decision whether to grant such a preliminary injunction could decide the case, because its absence, ByteDance would need to sell TikTok before the broader case could be decided, he said.

    Whether a court will grant such an injunction remains unclear to Hurwitz, largely because it requires balancing important free speech issues against the Biden administration’s claims of harm to national security. “I think the courts will be very deferential to Congress on these issues,” he said.

    The fight over TikTok comes amid a broader U.S.-China rivalry, especially in areas such as advanced technologies and data security that are seen as essential to each country’s economic prowess and national security.

    U.S. lawmakers from both parties, as well as administration and law enforcement officials, have expressed concerns that Chinese authorities could force ByteDance to hand over U.S. user data or sway public opinion by manipulating the algorithm that populates users’ feeds. Some have also pointed to a Rutgers University study that maintains TikTok content was being amplified or underrepresented based on how it aligns with the Chinese government’s interests — a claim the company disputes.

    Opponents of the law argue that Chinese authorities — or any nefarious parties — could easily get information on Americans in other ways, including through commercial data brokers that rent or sell personal information. They say the U.S. government hasn’t provided public evidence that shows TikTok has shared U.S. user information with Chinese authorities or tinkered with its algorithm for China’s benefit.

    “Data collection by apps has real consequences for all of our privacy,” said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of the ACLU’s National Security Project. “But banning one social media platform used by millions of people around the world is not the solution. Instead, we need Congress to pass laws that protect our privacy in the first place.”

    Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, expects TikTok’s lawsuit to succeed.

    “The First Amendment means the government can’t restrict Americans’ access to ideas, information, or media from abroad without a very good reason for it — and no such reason exists here,” Jaffer said in a statement.

    Although TikTok prevailed in earlier First Amendment challenges, it isn’t clear whether the current lawsuit will be as simple.

    “The bipartisan nature of this federal law may make judges more likely to defer to a Congressional determination that the company poses a national security risk,” said Gautam Hans, a law professor and associate director of the First Amendment Clinic at Cornell University. “Without public discussion of what exactly the risks are, however, it’s difficult to determine why the courts should validate such an unprecedented law.”

    __

    Associated Press writers David Hamilton and Seung Min Kim contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • European court upholds Italy’s right to seize prized Greek bronze from Getty Museum, rejects appeal

    European court upholds Italy’s right to seize prized Greek bronze from Getty Museum, rejects appeal

    [ad_1]

    ROME — A European court on Thursday upheld Italy’s right to seize a prized Greek statue from the J. Paul Getty Museum in California, ruling that Italy was justified in trying to reclaim an important part of its cultural heritage and rejecting the museum’s appeal.

    The European Court of Human Rights, or ECHR, determined that Italy’s decades-long efforts to recover the “Victorious Youth” statue from the Malibu-based Getty were not disproportionate.

    “Victorious Youth,” a life-sized bronze dating from 300 B.C. to 100 B.C., is one of the highlights of the Getty collection. Though the artist is unknown, some scholars believe it was made by Lysippos, Alexander the Great’s personal sculptor.

    The bronze, which was pulled from the sea in 1964 by Italian fishermen and then exported out of Italy illegally, was purchased by the Getty in 1977 for $4 million and has been on display there ever since.

    The Getty had appealed to the European court after Italy’s high Court of Cassation in 2018 upheld a lower court’s confiscation order. The Italian legal rulings were part of the country’s yearslong campaign to recover antiquities looted from its territory and sold to museums and private collectors around the globe.

    The Getty had argued that its rights to the statue, under a European human rights protocol on protection of property, had been violated by Italy’s campaign to get it back.

    The European court ruled Thursday that no such violation had occurred. and it went even further, affirming in English what Italy’s Cassation had determined: that the statue was part of Italy’s cultural heritage, that international law strongly supported Italy’s efforts to recover it, and that the Getty had been at best negligent when it bought it without properly ascertaining its provenance.

    “This is not just a victory for the Italian government. It’s a victory for culture,” said Maurizio Fiorilli, who as an Italian government attorney had spearheaded Italy’s efforts to recover its looted antiquities and, in particular, the Getty bronze.

    The Getty has long defended its right to the statue, saying Italy had no legal claim to it. The museum vowed Thursday to continue the legal battle to keep it.

    Despite Thursday’s ruling, “we believe that Getty’s nearly fifty-year public possession of an artwork that was neither created by an Italian artist nor found within the Italian territory is appropriate, ethical and consistent with American and international law,” the museum said in a statement.

    Among other things, the Getty has argued that the statue is of Greek origin, was found in international waters and was never part of Italy’s cultural heritage. It has cited a 1968 Court of Cassation ruling that found no evidence that the statue belonged to Italy.

    Italy argued, and the Cassation court later found, that the statue was indeed part of its own cultural heritage, that it was brought to shore by Italians aboard an Italian-flagged ship and was exported illegally, without any customs declarations or payments.

    Thursday’s decision by the Strasbourg, France-based ECHR was a chamber judgment. Both sides now have three months to ask that the case be heard by the court’s Grand Chamber for a final decision and Getty said it was considering such recourse.

    Italian Culture Minister Gennaro Sangiuliano praised Thursday’s decision as an “unequivocal ruling” that recognized the rights of the Italian state and its ownership of the statue.

    “Following today’s ruling … the Italian government will restart contacts with U.S. authorities for assistance in the implementation of the confiscation order,” he said.

    ECHR rulings are binding on the states that are party to the court. The U.S. is not a party but it has a tradition of judicial cooperation with Italy. Italy had asked the U.S. Attorney General’s Office to enforce the confiscation order in 2019. The ECHR ruling noted that the “procedure is still pending.”

    Sanguiliano doubled down on Italy’s campaign to bring its looted treasures home and noted that recently Italy has ceased cooperation with foreign museums that don’t recognize Italian confiscation orders.

    Recently, Italy banned any loans to the Minneapolis Institute of Art following a dispute over an ancient marble statue believed to have been looted from Italy almost a half-century ago.

    The Getty had appealed to the ECHR by arguing, among other things, that Italy’s 2010 confiscation order constituted a violation of its right to enjoy its possessions and that it would be deprived of that right if U.S. authorities carried out the seizure.

    The ECHR however strongly reaffirmed Italy’s right to pursue the protection of its cultural heritage.

    “The court further held that owing, in particular, to the Getty Trust’s negligence or bad faith in purchasing the statue despite being aware of the claims of the Italian state and their efforts to recover it, the confiscation order had been proportionate to the aim of ensuring the return of an object that was part of Italy’s cultural heritage,” said the summary of the ruling.

    The statue, nicknamed the “Getty Bronze,” is a signature piece for the museum. Standing about 5 feet (1.52 meters) tall, the representation of a young athlete raising his right hand to an olive wreath crown around his head is one of the few life-sized Greek bronzes to have survived.

    The bronze is believed to have sunk with the ship that was carrying it to Italy after the Romans conquered Greece. After being found in the nets of Italian fishermen trawling in international waters in 1964, it was allegedly buried in an Italian cabbage patch and hidden in a priest’s bathtub before it was taken out of the country.

    The statue resurfaced in Germany in the early 1970s in the possession of a German art dealer, identified in court documents as Mr. H.H., who was holding it on behalf of a Liechtenstein-based company.

    In 1972, advisers to J. Paul Getty, the American oil magnate and art collector, entered into negotiations with Mr. H.H. to purchase it. The ECHR ruling reproduced court documentation showing Getty himself wanted to be assured that he could obtain legal title to the statue.

    But the ECHR ruling said Getty’s advisers didn’t go far enough in ascertaining whether the sellers had acquired it and exported it legally from Italy. It said they relied on legal opinions from the sellers’ lawyers who “had a clear interest in presenting the provenance as legitimate.”

    Citing the lower court rulings, the ECHR judges determined the Getty Trust had “very weighty reason to doubt the statue’s legitimate provenance.” When they went ahead and purchased it anyway, they acted “at the very least, negligent, if not in bad faith.”

    It said the Getty couldn’t expect to be compensated for the statue, since it “accepted, at least implicitly, the risk that the statue might be confiscated.”

    Italy has successfully won back thousands of artifacts from museums, collections and private owners around the world that it says were looted or stolen from the country illegally. It recently opened a museum to house them until they can be returned to the regions from where they were looted.

    The most important work to date that Italy has successfully brought back is the Euphronios Krater, one of the finest ancient Greek vases in existence. The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, which purchased it for $1 million in 1972 from an art dealer later accused of acquiring looted artifacts, returned it to Italy in 2008.

    It wasn’t immediately clear what would happen next to the “Victorious Youth,” though Fiorilli said it was now for U.S. courts to enforce the Italian confiscation order.

    “It’s not about guaranteeing the right to property, it’s about guaranteeing the internationally recognized value of every nation’s right to protect its cultural patrimony,” Fiorilli told The Associated Press by telephone.

    [ad_2]

    By Nicole Winfield | Associated Press

    Source link

  • Would You Still Use Google if It Didn’t Pay Apple $20 Billion to Get on Your iPhone?

    Would You Still Use Google if It Didn’t Pay Apple $20 Billion to Get on Your iPhone?

    [ad_1]

    Microsoft has poured over $100 billion into developing its Bing search engine over the past two decades but has little market share to show for it. About nine out of every 10 web searches in the US are made through Google, with Bing splitting the remaining queries with a long list of small competitors.

    On Thursday the US government asked a federal judge in Washington, DC, to rule that Google maintains that lead illegally, by unfairly manipulating users to keep Microsoft and other competitors down.

    Google’s dominance drove the US Department of Justice to sue the company in 2020 alleging that it had violated antitrust law by using exclusionary contracts to maintain a monopoly. The two sides went into a secretive trial at the end of last year before breaking for nearly five months for US Judge Amit Mehta to digest the evidence.

    Mehta heard closing arguments on Thursday, with government attorneys arguing that without his intervention Google’s dominance would remain in years to come—despite nascent threats from AI chatbots like ChatGPT. “The search engine industry has been impervious to any competitor entering,” attorney Kenneth Dintzer said.

    The case is the first to go to trial out of a handful of lawsuits the government has brought against the biggest tech companies since stepping up antitrust scrutiny of the industry in 2019 under then-President Donald Trump. The Biden administration hasn’t let off the gas.

    Central to the government’s case against Google is the over $20 billion it says that Google pays Apple annually to be the default search engine on iPhones and the Safari browser across much of the world. Google pays an additional more than $1.5 billion a year to wireless carriers and device makers, and more than $150 million to browsers, for similar defaults in the US, according to the government. Google can afford to pay those sums and still enjoy enormous profits because it has the US market for search and search ads cornered, the government alleges.

    Google’s attorneys counter that companies such as Apple choose Google as the default because it offers a better experience to users, not just because they are getting payouts. When browsers such as Mozilla have opted for alternatives to Google, they have lost users because of the change, the search company argues. “Google lawfully acquired monopoly power and scale,” attorney John Schmidtlein told Mehta. “Microsoft missed the boat.”

    Before Mehta now is the question of whether Google unfairly earned its popularity.

    Profit Boost

    Google’s deals with Apple date to 2002, when the Safari developer first gained the option to integrate Google search into the browser, according to court papers. The payments started after Google cofounder Sergey Brin in 2005 raised the idea of sharing a slice of the company’s blossoming search revenue or “helping Apple out in other ways,” Brin wrote, according to court papers.

    But in a deal struck that year, Google got something in exchange for agreeing to pay Apple half of its sales: Google search would be required to be the default in Safari. The requirement has spread to more Apple services in the years since, while the revenue share and related incentive fees have fluctuated.

    [ad_2]

    Paresh Dave

    Source link

  • Saudi fitness influencer jailed after going shopping in ‘indecent clothes’

    Saudi fitness influencer jailed after going shopping in ‘indecent clothes’

    [ad_1]

    A SAUDI-Arabian fitness influencer has been jailed for 11 years after she went shopping in an outfit which was deemed inappropriate.

    Manahel al-Otaibi was handed the jail sentence in January but details of the shocking case have only just emerged.

    4

    A Saudi Arabian fitness influencer was jailed for 11 yearsCredit: Handout
    Saudi Arabia accused Manahel al-Otaibi of 'terrorist offences' but human rights groups disagree

    4

    Saudi Arabia accused Manahel al-Otaibi of ‘terrorist offences’ but human rights groups disagreeCredit: Handout

    The country recently replied to a United Nations human rights request after the country claimed she was jailed for “terrorist offences”.

    Amnesty International and Al Qst, a Saudi human rights group based in London have slammed this narrative and say Al-Otaibi was actually imprisoned for a different reason.

    According to them it was her choice of clothing and social media posts where she posted the hashtag “abolish male guardianship” that landed her in hot water with the conservative country,

    Al-Otaibi wore what were judged to be “indecent clothes” in videos and went shopping without an abaya, a long robe, the groups said.

    Saudi Arabia claimed that Al-Otaibi was “convicted of terrorist offences that have no bearing on her exercise of freedom of opinion and expression or her social media posts”.

    The country’s counter-terrorism law, under which Al-Otaibi was convicted, has been criticised by the United Nations as an overly broad tool to stop dissent.

    Bissan Fakih, Amnesty International’s campaigner on Saudi Arabia, said: “Manahel’s conviction and 11-year sentence is an appalling and cruel injustice.

    “With this sentence, the Saudi authorities have exposed the hollowness of their much-touted women’s rights reforms in recent years and demonstrated their chilling commitment to silencing peaceful dissent.”

    Lina Alhathloul, Al Qst’s head of monitoring and advocacy, said: “Manahel’s confidence that she could act with freedom could have been a positive advertisement for Mohammed bin Salman‘s much-touted narrative of leading women’s rights reforms in the country.

    “Instead, by arresting her and now imposing this outrageous sentence on her, the Saudi authorities have once again laid bare the arbitrary and contradictory nature of their so-called reforms, and their continuing determination to control Saudi Arabia’s women.”

    EGO TRIP Saudi Arabia insists first part of $500bn NEOM Megacity WILL be open this year with ultra-lux island resort

    Saudi Arabia denied allegations from the well established human rights groups in its letter to the UN.

    It comes as the world’s first Dragon Ball theme park is set to open in Saudi Arabia as the country ramps up its efforts to attract tourists.

    It’s expected to be a sight to behold, featuring a huge 70m dragon at its centre and more than 30 thrilling rides.

    But, although some are excited for the comic-series-inspired park, others have slammed the country for its brutal regime.

    Amnesty International and Al Qst say it was the influencers choice of clothing and showing support for abolishing male guardianship that got her the sentence

    4

    Amnesty International and Al Qst say it was the influencers choice of clothing and showing support for abolishing male guardianship that got her the sentenceCredit: Handout
    Saudi Arabia's counter-terrorism law has been criticised by the United Nations as an overly broad tool to stop dissent

    4

    Saudi Arabia’s counter-terrorism law has been criticised by the United Nations as an overly broad tool to stop dissentCredit: AFP

    Rules in Saudi Arabia

    Saudi Arabia is known for having a poor human rights record and many strict rules.

    1. NO FREE SPEECH

    Dozens of outspoken activists remain behind bars, simply for exercising their rights to freedom of expression.

    Many of Saudi Arabia’s most famous human rights defenders have been imprisoned, threatened into silence, or fled the country.

    2. NO PROTESTS

    Protests and demonstrations are illegal.

    Those who break this law can face arrest, prosecution and imprisonment on charges such as “inciting people against the authorities”.

    3. NO LBGTQI+ RIGHTS

    LGBTQI+ rights are not legally recognized or protected in Saudi Arabia, and are even labeled as “extremist ideas.”

    The country’s legal system prohibits LGBTQI+ relationships, public displays of affection and gender expression.

    Anyone found to be in breach of this law can face discrimination, and legal repercussions including fines, imprisonment or the death penalty.

    4. CRACKDOWN ON FREE MEDIA AND PRESS

    The Saudi authorities control domestic media and journalists can be imprisoned for a variety of “crimes”
    Saudi authorities including the Crown Prince sanctioned the brutal murder the journalist Jamal Khashoggi after he criticised the government.

    Leadership in the country has never been held to account for their role.

    [ad_2]

    Olivia Allhusen

    Source link

  • Appeals court rejects climate change lawsuit by young Oregon activists against US government

    Appeals court rejects climate change lawsuit by young Oregon activists against US government

    [ad_1]

    SEATTLE — A federal appeals court panel on Wednesday rejected a long-running lawsuit brought by young Oregon-based climate activists who argued that the U.S. government’s role in climate change violated their constitutional rights.

    The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals previously ordered the case dismissed in 2020, saying that the job of determining the nation’s climate policies should fall to politicians, not judges. But U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken in Eugene, Oregon, instead allowed the activists to amend their lawsuit and last year ruled the case could go to trial.

    Acting on a request from the Biden administration, a three-judge 9th Circuit panel issued an order Wednesday requiring Aiken to dismiss the case, and she did. Julia Olson, an attorney with Our Children’s Trust, the nonprofit law firm representing the activists, said they were considering asking the 9th Circuit to rehear the matter with a larger slate of judges.

    “I have been pleading for my government to hear our case since I was ten years old, and I am now nearly 19,” one of the activists, Avery McRae, said in a news release issued by the law firm. “A functioning democracy would not make a child beg for their rights to be protected in the courts, just to be ignored nearly a decade later. I am fed up with the continuous attempts to squash this case and silence our voices.”

    The case — called Juliana v. United States after one of the plaintiffs, Kelsey Juliana — has been closely watched since it was filed in 2015. The 21 plaintiffs, who were between the ages of 8 and 18 at the time, said they have a constitutional right to a climate that sustains life. The U.S. government’s actions encouraging a fossil fuel economy, despite scientific warnings about global warming, is unconstitutional, they argued.

    The lawsuit was challenged repeatedly by the Obama, Trump and Biden administrations, whose lawyers argued the lawsuit sought to direct federal environmental and energy policies through the courts instead of through the political process. At one point in 2018, a trial was halted by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts just days before it was to begin.

    Another climate lawsuit brought by young people was successful: Early this year the Montana Supreme Court upheld a landmark decision requiring regulators to consider the effects of greenhouse gas emissions before issuing permits for fossil fuel development.

    That case was also brought by Our Children’s Trust, which has filed climate lawsuits in every state on behalf of young plaintiffs since 2010.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Supreme Court will hear case claiming CBD product got trucker fired

    Supreme Court will hear case claiming CBD product got trucker fired

    [ad_1]

    The Supreme Court will hear an appeal from a Vista, California, CBD hemp oil company fighting a lawsuit from a truck driver who says he got fired after using a product falsely advertised as being free from the active ingredient in marijuana

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear an appeal from a CBD hemp oil maker fighting a lawsuit from a truck driver who says he got fired after using a product falsely advertised as being free from marijuana‘s active ingredient.

    Douglas Horn says he took the product to help with chronic shoulder and back pain he had after a serious accident. The company said it contained CBD, a generally legal compound that is widely sold as a dietary supplement and included in personal-care products, but not THC, which gives marijuana its high, Horn said in court documents.

    After a failed routine drug test got him fired, Horn says he confirmed with a lab that the product did have THC. He sued the Vista, California, company under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, among other claims, alleging the THC-free marketing amounted to fraud.

    The law known as RICO was crafted as a tool to prosecute organized crime, but people can also file civil suits under it against alleged schemes and collect triple the damages if they win. An appeals court found Horn’s claim should be allowed to go forward.

    Medical Marijuana, Inc. appealed that decision to the Supreme Court. The company disputes Horn’s claims and argues that he can’t sue under RICO because he’s claiming a personal injury. Other appeals courts have dismissed RICO suits in similar circumstances, the company said, making this case a good one to decide on a nationwide rule.

    Horn, for his part, says his firing was a business injury and he’s been financially ruined.

    The case will be heard in the fall.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Finnish hacker gets prison for accessing thousands of psychotherapy records and demanding ransoms

    Finnish hacker gets prison for accessing thousands of psychotherapy records and demanding ransoms

    [ad_1]

    HELSINKI — A Finnish court on Tuesday sentenced a 26-year-old man to six years and three months in prison for hacking thousands of patient records at a private psychotherapy center and seeking ransom from some patients over the sensitive data.

    The case has caused outrage in the Nordic nation, with a record number of people — about 24,000 — filing criminal complaints with police.

    In February 2023, French police arrested well-known Finnish hacker Aleksanteri Kivimäki, who was living under a false identity near Paris. He was deported to Finland. His trial ended last month.

    The Länsi-Uusimaa District Court said Kivimäki was guilty of, among other things, aggravated data breach, nearly 21,000 aggravated blackmail attempts and more than 9,200 aggravated disseminations of information infringing private life.

    The court called the crimes “ruthless” and “very damaging” considering the state of people involved.

    According to the charges, Kivimäki in 2018 hacked into the information system of the Vastaamo psychotherapy center and downloaded its database of some 33,000 clients.

    Vastaamo, which declared bankruptcy in 2021, had branches throughout the country of 5.6 million people and operated as a sub-contractor for Finland’s public health system.

    Prosecutors said Kivimäki first demanded that Vastaamo pay him an amount equivalent to around 370,000 euros ($396,000) in bitcoins in exchange for not publishing the patient records.

    When the center refused, Kivimäki in 2020 began publishing patient information on the dark web and sent patients messages demanding a ransom of 200 euros or 500 euros. About 20 patients paid, prosecutors said.

    Kivimäki denied all charges. His lawyer said he would likely appeal. Prosecutors had sought seven years in prison, the maximum for such crimes under Finnish law.

    Kivimäki was first convicted at age 15 after hacking into over 50,000 servers with software he developed, Finnish newspaper Ilta-Sanomat reported in 2022.

    In the United States, he was convicted over hacking cases involving the U.S. Air Force and Sony Online Entertainment.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Supreme Court rejects Musk appeal over social media posts that must be approved by Tesla

    Supreme Court rejects Musk appeal over social media posts that must be approved by Tesla

    [ad_1]

    FILE – Elon Musk arrives at the 10th Breakthrough Prize Ceremony at the Academy Museum of Motion Pictures in Los Angeles, April 13, 2024. The Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee published a staff report on Wednesday, April 18, disclosing dozens of decisions by Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, ordering X to suspend or remove around 150 user profiles from its platform in recent years. (Photo by Jordan Strauss/Invision/AP file)

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Where do libertarians stand on the campus wars?

    Where do libertarians stand on the campus wars?

    [ad_1]

    In this week’s The Reason Roundtable, editors Matt Welch, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Nick Gillespie, and Peter Suderman assess the spate of anti-Israel campus protests at universities across the country, followed by another look at the trials of both Harvey Weinstein and Donald Trump in New York.

    00:37—Campus protests across the country

    31:35—Weekly Listener Question

    38:01—Harvey Weinstein rape conviction overturned in New York

    44:01—Trump trials continue apace

    48:57—This week’s cultural recommendations

    Mentioned in this podcast:

    Why Are College Kids Terrified?” a Q&A with Greg Lukianoff and Rikki Schlott by Nick Gillespie

    ‘Is College ‘The Incubator of the Nanny State’? Nick Gillespie Talks with FIRE

    Animal Farm 1970,” by Lanny Friedlander

    Seriousness Crisis,” by Liz Wolfe

    School’s Out,” by Christian Britschgi

    Texas Public Colleges Crack Down on Peaceful Anti-Israel Protests,” by Emma Camp

    The Morningside Heights Tent City,” by Liz Wolfe

    USC Cancels Valedictorian’s Speech Over Bogus ‘Safety Concerns,’” by Emma Camp

    There’s Nothing Modern About MMT,” by Alexander William Salter

    The Fiscal Hawks Were Right About Debt and Interest Rates,” by Veronique de Rugy

    Why We Need To Shrink the National Debt, and Fast!” by Nick Gillespie

    Want To Boost Economic Growth? Tell the Government To Spend Less,” by Veronique de Rugy

    Thanks for Democracy, Greece, but Don’t Let the Door Hit You on the Way Out of 1st World!” by Nick Gillespie

    The Court Was Right To Overturn Harvey Weinstein’s Rape Conviction,” by Billy Binion

    Alvin Bragg’s ‘Election Interference’ Narrative Is Nonsensical,” by Jacob Sullum

    The Alarming Implications of Trump’s Immunity Claim,” by Jacob Sullum

    At Trump’s Trial, a Window Into the Golden Era of Tabloids,” by Michael Rothfeld

    Challengers Is the Horny Tennis Movie Hollywood Needs,” by Peter Suderman

    Anarchy, State and Utopia,” by Eric Mack

    Nick Gillespie’s upcoming interview with Students for Sensible Drug Policy’s Kat Murti on May 8 in New York City

    Send your questions to roundtable@reason.com. Be sure to include your social media handle and the correct pronunciation of your name.

    Today’s sponsor:

    • Hello, liberty lovers! Are you passionate about preserving civil liberties and individual freedom? Do you want to support organizations that uphold these principles but struggle to navigate the complex world of charitable giving? Well, fear not! We have the perfect solution for you: a giving account with DonorsTrust. A giving account, also known as a donor-advised fund, is a simple, secure, and tax-advantaged way for libertarian givers like you to support the causes you care about most. With a donor-advised fund, you can make a contribution, receive an immediate tax deduction, and then recommend grants to your favorite charities over time. Plus, you retain control over how your charitable dollars are invested, ensuring they align with your values and goals. Whether you’re passionate about defending free speech, protecting property rights, or promoting limited government, a donor-advised fund with DonorsTrust empowers you to make a meaningful impact. Join us in preserving liberty for future generations by opening a donor-advised fund at DonorsTrust today. To learn more and get started, visit our sponsor, DonorsTrust, at www.donorstrust.org/roundtable. Take control of your giving and make a difference in the fight for freedom. Remember, every dollar counts in the battle to safeguard our civil liberties. Let’s make our voices heard together!

    Audio production by Ian Keyser; assistant production by Hunt Beaty.

    Music: “Angeline,” by The Brothers Steve


    [ad_2]

    Matt Welch

    Source link

  • Harvey Weinstein hospitalized after his return to New York from upstate prison

    Harvey Weinstein hospitalized after his return to New York from upstate prison

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — NEW YORK (AP) — Harvey Weinstein’s lawyer said Saturday that the onetime movie mogul has been hospitalized for a battery of tests after his return to New York City following an appeals court ruling nullifying his 2020 rape conviction.

    Attorney Arthur Aidala said Weinstein was moved to Bellevue Hospital in Manhattan after his arrival on Friday to city jails.

    “They examined him and sent him to Bellevue. It seems like he needs a lot of help, physically. He’s got a lot of problems. He’s getting all kinds of tests. He’s somewhat of a train wreck health wise,” Aidala said.

    A message left with the hospital was not immediately returned Saturday.

    Frank Dwyer, a spokesperson with the New York City Department of Correction, said only that Weinstein remains in custody at Bellevue. Thomas Mailey, a spokesperson for the state Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, said Weinstein was turned over to the city’s Department of Correction pursuant to the appeals ruling. Weinstein had been housed at the Mohawk Correctional Facility, about 100 miles (160 kilometers) northwest of Albany.

    On Thursday, the New York Court of Appeals vacated his conviction after concluding that a trial judge permitted jurors to see and hear too much evidence not directly related to the charges he faced. It also erased his 23-year prison sentence and ordered a retrial.

    Prosecutors said they intend to retry him on charges that he forcibly performed oral sex on a TV and film production assistant in 2006 and raped an aspiring actor in 2013.

    Weinstein remained in custody after the appeals ruling because he was convicted in Los Angeles in 2022 of another rape and was sentenced to 16 years in prison.

    For some time, Weinstein has been ailing with a variety of afflictions, including cardiac issues, diabetes, sleep apnea and eye problems.

    Aidala said he spoke to Weinstein on Friday afternoon after he was in transit to New York City from an upstate jail less than 24 hours after the appeals ruling, which was released Thursday morning.

    He said his client’s ailments are physical, adding that mentally he is “sharp as a tack. Feet are firmly planted on the ground.”

    The lawyer said it usually takes state corrections and prisons officials a week or two to arrange to transport a prisoner.

    “He was not treated well. They refused to give him even a sip of water, no food, no bathroom break,” Aidala said. “He’s a 72-year-old sickly man.”

    Mailey, the state corrections spokesperson, had no comment when Aidala’s remarks about Weinstein’s treatment were read to him over the phone.

    Aidala said he was told that Bellevue doctors planned to run a lot of tests on Weinstein before he can be returned to the Rikers Island jail complex.

    The lawyer said he’s scheduled to meet with Weinstein on Monday. He added that he plans to tell a judge when Weinstein goes to court on Wednesday in Manhattan that a retrial should occur after Labor Day.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Ex-union leader John Dougherty’s extortion trial ends in mistrial

    Ex-union leader John Dougherty’s extortion trial ends in mistrial

    [ad_1]

    Former union leader John Dougherty’s third federal trial ended Thursday with a deadlocked jury, according to multiple media reports.

    U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Schmehl declared a mistrial after the jury could not reach a verdict on the 19 counts against Dougherty and his nephew, Greg Fiocca. They were charged with conspiracy and extortion after they allegedly threatened a contractor amid a dispute about Fiocca’s job performance and pay during the construction of the Live! Casino and Hotel Philadelphia in August 2020. 


    MORESean Dougherty defeats Kevin Boyle in Democratic primary for state rep in 172nd District


    The six-day trial took place in Reading, with two dozen witnesses testifying in the case. Both Dougherty and his nephew pled not guilty. 

    Dougherty, also known as “Johnny Doc,” was the longtime business manager of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 98 until he resigned in November 2021 following his conviction on conspiracy charges. Last year, he was convicted of embezzlement charges. Dougherty is scheduled to be sentenced for those convictions in July. 

    In this case, Dougherty and Fiocca faced 19 counts of conspiracy and extortion. While working as the Local 98 steward for the project, Fiocca allegedly threatened the contractor for paying him for less than 40 hours of work.

    The contractor claimed Fiocca hadn’t been showing up for work and that the paycheck reflected the hours he was there. Fiocca allegedly grabbed the contractor by the throat and threw him onto the desk. 

    Dougherty later intervened. He allegedly threatened to pull all of the Local 98 workers from the job and said he would use his influence to prevent the contractor from getting future jobs in the area. Fiocca remained employed by the contractor until January 2021. 

    Dougherty and Fiocca have maintained their innocence. Following Dougherty’s arrest in 2021, his spokesperson Frank Keel said the federal government had targeted Dougherty since he became the business manager in 1993 for the union. 

    “This isn’t a prosecution, it’s a persecution,” Keel said at the time.

    Dougherty was found guilty in December of stealing $600,000 from Local 98 between 2010 and 2016. In 2021, he and former Councilmember Bobby Henon were found guilty on bribery charges. 

    [ad_2]

    Michaela Althouse

    Source link

  • Harvey Weinstein’s rape conviction is overturned by New York’s top court

    Harvey Weinstein’s rape conviction is overturned by New York’s top court

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — New York’s highest court on Thursday threw out Harvey Weinstein ’s 2020 rape conviction with a ruling that shocked and disappointed women who celebrated historic gains during the #MeToo era and left those who testified in the case bracing for a retrial against the ex-movie mogul.

    The court found the trial judge unfairly allowed testimony against Weinstein based on allegations that weren’t part of the case.

    Weinstein, 72, will remain in prison because he was convicted in Los Angeles in 2022 of another rape. But the New York ruling reopens a painful chapter in America’s reckoning with sexual misconduct by powerful figures — an era that began in 2017 with a flood of allegations against Weinstein.

    #MeToo advocates noted that Thursday’s ruling was based on legal technicalities and not an exoneration of Weinstein’s behavior, saying the original trial irrevocably moved the cultural needle on attitudes about sexual assault.

    The Manhattan district attorney’s office said it intends to retry Weinstein, and at least one of his accusers said through her lawyer that she would testify again.

    The state Court of Appeals overturned Weinstein’s 23-year sentence in a 4-3 decision, saying “the trial court erroneously admitted testimony of uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts” and permitted questions about Weinstein’s “bad behavior” if he had testified. It called this “highly prejudicial” and “an abuse of judicial discretion.”

    In a stinging dissent, Judge Madeline Singas wrote that the Court of Appeals was continuing a “disturbing trend of overturning juries’ guilty verdicts in cases involving sexual violence.” She said the ruling came at “the expense and safety of women.”

    In another dissent, Judge Anthony Cannataro wrote that the decision was “endangering decades of progress in this incredibly complex and nuanced area of law” regarding sex crimes after centuries of “deeply patriarchal and misogynistic legal tradition.”

    The reversal of Weinstein’s conviction is the second major #MeToo setback in the last two years. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of a Pennsylvania court decision to throw out Bill Cosby’s sexual assault conviction.

    Weinstein has been in a New York prison since his conviction for forcibly performing oral sex on a TV and film production assistant in 2006, and rape in the third degree for an attack on an aspiring actress in 2013. He was acquitted on the most serious charges — two counts of predatory sexual assault and first-degree rape.

    He was sentenced to 16 years in prison in the Los Angeles case.

    Weinstein’s lawyers expect Thursday’s court ruling to have a major impact on the appeal of his Los Angeles rape conviction. Their arguments are due May 20.

    Jennifer Bonjean, a Weinstein attorney, said the California prosecution also relied on evidence of uncharged conduct alleged against him.

    “A jury was told in California that he was convicted in another state for rape,” Bonjean said. “Turns out he shouldn’t have been convicted and it wasn’t a fair conviction. … It interfered with his presumption of innocence in a significant way in California.”

    Weinstein lawyer Arthur Aidala called the Court of Appeals ruling “a tremendous victory for every criminal defendant in the state of New York.”

    Attorney Douglas H. Wigdor, who has represented eight Harvey Weinstein accusers including two witnesses at the New York criminal trial, called the ruling “a major step back” and contrary to routine rulings by judges allowing evidence of uncharged acts to help jurors understand the intent or patterns of a defendant’s criminal behavior.

    Debra Katz, a prominent civil rights and #MeToo attorney who represented several Weinstein accusers, said her clients are “feeling gutted” by the ruling, but that she believed – and was telling them – that their testimony had changed the world.

    “People continue to come forward, people continue to support other victims who’ve reported sexual assault and violence, and I truly believe there’s no going back from that,” Katz said. She predicted Weinstein will be convicted at a retrial, and said accusers like her client Dawn Dunning feel great comfort knowing Weinstein will remain behind bars.

    Dunning, a former actor who served as a supporting witness at the New York Weinstein trial, said in remarks to The Associated Press conveyed through Katz that she was “shocked” by the ruling and dealing with a range of emotions, including asking herself, “Was it all for naught?”

    “It took two years of my life,” Dunning said. “I had to live through it every day. But would I do it again? Yes.”

    She said that in confronting Weinstein, she had faced her worst fear and realized he had no power over her.

    Weinstein’s conviction in 2020 was heralded by activists and advocates as a milestone achievement, but dissected just as quickly by his lawyers and, later, the Court of Appeals when it heard arguments on the matter in February.

    Allegations against Weinstein, the once powerful and feared studio boss behind such Oscar winners as “Pulp Fiction” and “Shakespeare in Love,” ushered in the #MeToo movement.

    Dozens of women came forward to accuse Weinstein, including famous actresses such as Ashley Judd and Uma Thurman. His New York trial drew intense publicity, with protesters chanting “rapist” outside the courthouse.

    “This is what it’s like to be a woman in America, living with male entitlement to our bodies,” Judd said Thursday.

    Weinstein, incarcerated at the Mohawk Correctional Facility, about 100 miles (160 kilometers) northwest of Albany, maintains his innocence. He contends any sexual activity was consensual.

    His lawyers argued on appeal that the trial overseen by Judge James Burke was unfair because three women whose claims of unwanted sexual encounters with Weinstein were not part of the charges were allowed to testify. Burke’s term expired at the end of 2022, and he is no longer a judge.

    They also appealed the trial judge’s ruling that prosecutors could confront Weinstein over his long history of brutish behavior, including allegations of punching his movie producer brother at a business meeting, snapping at waiters, hiding a woman’s clothes and threatening to cut off a colleague’s genitals with gardening shears.

    As a result, Weinstein, who wanted to testify, did not take the stand, Aidala said.

    The appeals court labeled the allegations “appalling, shameful, repulsive conduct” but warned that “destroying a defendant’s character under the guise of prosecutorial need” did not justify some trial evidence and testimony.

    In a majority opinion written by Judge Jenny Rivera, the Court of Appeals said defendants have a right to be held accountable “only for the crime charged and, thus, allegations of prior bad acts may not be admitted against them for the sole purpose of establishing their propensity for criminality.”

    The Court of Appeals agreed last year to take Weinstein’s case after an intermediate appeals court upheld his conviction. Prior to their ruling, judges on the lower appellate court at oral arguments had raised doubts about Burke’s conduct. One observed that Burke had let prosecutors pile on with “incredibly prejudicial testimony” from additional witnesses.

    At a news conference, Aidala predicted that the lasting effect of the reversal would be that more defendants will testify at their trials, including Weinstein, who “will be able to tell his side of the story.”

    He said that when he spoke to Weinstein Thursday, his client told him: “I’ve been here for years in prison for something I didn’t do. You got to fix this.”

    ___

    Associated Press writer Dave Collins reported from Hartford, Connecticut. AP writers Jocelyn Noveck, Cedar Attanasio and Larry Neumeister in New York also contributed to this story.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Man who shot ex-Saints star Will Smith receives 25-year prison sentence for manslaughter

    Man who shot ex-Saints star Will Smith receives 25-year prison sentence for manslaughter

    [ad_1]

    NEW ORLEANS — The man who fatally shot retired NFL star Will Smith during a confrontation following a car crash in 2016 received a 25-year prison sentence Thursday in a New Orleans courtroom.

    It was the second time Cardell Hayes, 36, had faced sentencing in Smith’s death. He was convicted of manslaughter in December 2016 and later sentenced to 25 years. But the jury vote had been 10-2 and the conviction was later tossed after the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed such non-unanimous verdicts.

    After a new trial, Hayes was convicted by a unanimous jury in January, rejecting defense arguments that Hayes had fired in self-defense, thinking that a drunken and belligerent Smith had retrieved a gun from his SUV.

    “This court has struggled with this case since the time I got it,” said state District Judge Camille Buras, who presided in both trials. Before sentencing Hayes, she acknowledged the strong support he received from friends and family, and testimony that he had been a model prisoner. But she noted that both Hayes and a companion were armed when they exited Hayes’ car after the crash. And she said Smith was unarmed as he retreated to his car “perhaps to arm himself, perhaps not.”

    Smith was shot eight times — seven times in the back — during the confrontation.

    Buras also noted the damaging force with which Hayes’ Hummer rammed Smith’s SUV on the night of the crash. Surveillance video from the night of the shooting showed Smith’s Mercedes SUV possibly bumping Hayes’ Hummer, then driving off. Hayes followed them. He has said he did not intend to ram Smith’s car and the jury acquitted him on a charge related to the ramming at the 2016 trial.

    Prosecutors had asked for the 25-year sentence, saying Hayes, while he has expressed sorrow, has never acknowledged wrongdoing. Defense lawyer Sarah Chervinsky didn’t directly ask for a specific sentence but noted strong community and family support for Hayes and, at one point in her argument, said “five years is enough.”

    Smith’s daughter Lisa, now a teenager, was among those who spoke in court before the sentencing. She said her mother had to relearn to walk after the shooting and she lamented not having her father around for major life events.

    “Mr. Hayes, you ruined my life,” she said. “You took my father away from me.”

    In testimony in support of Hayes, his mother, Dawn Mumphrey, expressed sorrow for the loss of Smith. “Our lives are forever changed as well,” she said, her voice shaking. She tearfully looked at the judge. “I ask for your mercy,” she said.

    Hayes has long said he fired in self-defense. During his first trial, he testified that he heard a “pop” before he started shooting and that he did not shoot at Smith’s wife, Racquel, who was hit in the legs.

    Evidence showed Smith was intoxicated at the time of the confrontation. But there was no witness or forensic evidence to back up Hayes’ claim that Smith had wielded or fired a weapon. At the January retrial, defense attorney John Fuller did not call Hayes to testify, but insisted prosecutors had failed to prove Hayes didn’t fire in self-defense.

    Hayes was released on bond in 2021 after having served more than four years of the original sentence. He was out of prison during multiple retrial delays, some due to the COVID-19 pandemic. But he was taken back into custody following the unanimous Jan. 27 verdict and had been awaiting sentencing at the New Orleans jail.

    The overturned verdicts from the 2016 jury also included an attempted manslaughter conviction in the wounding of Racquel Smith. Hayes was acquitted of that charge at January’s second trial.

    Hayes has already served more than four years in prison, for which he will receive credit. He has also been subject to strict supervision and home confinement. It was not immediately clear whether and how that would count toward his sentence. Buras said she would discuss that with prison officials.

    Before Thursday’s sentencing, about two dozen of Hayes’ family and friends formed a circle and prayed in the wide courthouse hallway.

    Smith, a 34-year-old father of three, was a defensive leader on the Saints team that lifted spirits in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina devastated the city in 2005. He helped carry the team to a winning season in 2006 and a Super Bowl victory in 2010. Smith attended Ohio State University and helped the Buckeyes win the 2002 national championship.

    Hayes, who owned a tow truck business, once played semi-pro and is the father of a teenager and a 2-year-old child.

    [ad_2]

    Source link