ReportWire

Tag: REUTERS-LEGAL

  • Twitter lays off staff, Musk blames activists for ad revenue drop

    Twitter lays off staff, Musk blames activists for ad revenue drop

    [ad_1]

    • Musk axes around half of Twitter’s workforce
    • Employees file class action against Twitter
    • Staff lose access to systems
    • Major advertisers pull ads

    Nov 4 (Reuters) – Twitter Inc laid off half its workforce on Friday but said cuts were smaller in the team responsible for preventing the spread of misinformation, as advertisers pulled spending amid concerns about content moderation.

    Tweets by staff of the social media company said teams responsible for communications, content curation, human rights and machine learning ethics were among those gutted, as were some product and engineering teams.

    The move caps a week of chaos and uncertainty about the company’s future under new owner Elon Musk, the world’s richest person, who tweeted on Friday that the service was experiencing a “massive drop in revenue” from the advertiser retreat.

    Musk blamed the losses on a coalition of civil rights groups that has been pressing Twitter’s top advertisers to take action if he did not protect content moderation – concerns heightened ahead of potential pivotal congressional elections on Tuesday.

    After the layoffs, the groups said they were escalating their pressure and demanding brands pull their Twitter ads globally.

    “Unfortunately there is no choice when the company is losing over $4M/day,” Musk tweeted of the layoffs, adding that everyone affected was offered three months of severance pay.

    The company was silent about the depth of the cuts until late in the day, when head of safety and integrity Yoel Roth tweeted confirmation of internal plans, seen by Reuters earlier in the week, projecting the layoffs would affect about 3,700 people, or 50% of the staff.

    Among those let go were 784 employees from the company’s San Francisco headquarters and 199 in San Jose and Los Angeles, according to filings to California’s employment authority.

    Roth said the reductions hit about 15% of his team, which is responsible for preventing the spread of misinformation and other harmful content, and that the company’s “core moderation capabilities” remained in place.

    Musk endorsed the safety executive last week, citing his “high integrity” after Roth was called out over tweets critical of former President Donald Trump years earlier.

    Musk has promised to restore free speech while preventing Twitter from descending into a “hellscape.”

    President Joe Biden said on Friday that Musk had purchased a social media platform in Twitter that spews lies across the world.

    “And now what are we all worried about: Elon Musk goes out and buys an outfit that sends – that spews lies all across the world… There’s no editors anymore in America. There’s no editors. How do we expect kids to be able to understand what is at stake?”

    Major advertisers have expressed apprehension about Musk’s takeover for months.

    Brands including General Motors Co (GM.N) and General Mills Inc (GIS.N) have said they stopped advertising on Twitter while awaiting information about the new direction of the platform.

    Musk tweeted that his team had made no changes to content moderation and done “everything we could” to appease the groups. Speaking at an investors conference in New York on Friday, Musk called the activist pressure “an attack on the First Amendment.”

    Twitter did not respond to a request for comment.

    ACCESS TO SYSTEMS CUT

    The email notifying staff about layoffs was the first communication Twitter workers received from the company’s leadership after Musk took over last week. It was signed only by “Twitter,” without naming Musk or any other executives.

    Dozens of staffers tweeted they had lost access to work email and Slack channels overnight before receiving an official layoff notice on Friday morning, prompting an outpouring of laments by current and former employees on the platform they had built.

    They shared blue hearts and salute emojis expressing support for one another, using the hashtags #OneTeam and #LoveWhereYouWorked, a past-tense version of a slogan employees had used for years to celebrate the company’s work culture.

    Twitter’s curation team, which was responsible for “highlighting and contextualizing the best events and stories that unfold on Twitter,” had been axed, employees wrote.

    Shannon Raj Singh, an attorney who was Twitter’s acting head of human rights, tweeted that the entire human rights team at the company had been sacked.

    Another team that focused on research into how Twitter employed machine learning and algorithms, an issue that was a priority for Musk, was also eliminated, according to a tweet from a former senior manager at Twitter.

    Senior executives including vice president of engineering Arnaud Weber said their goodbyes on Twitter on Friday: “Twitter still has a lot of unlocked potential but I’m proud of what we accomplished.”

    Employees of Twitter Blue, the premium subscription service that Musk is bolstering, were also let go. An employee with the handle “SillyRobin” who had indicated they were laid off, quote-tweeted a previous Musk tweet saying Twitter Blue would include “paywall bypass” for certain publishers.

    “Just to be clear, he fired the team working on this,” the employee said.

    DOORS LOCKED

    Twitter said in its email to staffers that offices would be temporarily closed and badge access suspended “to help ensure the safety of each employee as well as Twitter systems and customer data.”

    Offices in London and Dublin appeared deserted on Friday, with no employees in sight. At the London office, any evidence Twitter had once occupied the building was erased.

    A receptionist at Twitter’s San Francisco headquarters said a few people had trickled in and were working in the floors above despite the notice to stay away.

    A class action was filed on Thursday against Twitter by several employees, who argued the company was conducting mass layoffs without providing the required 60-day advance notice, in violation of federal and California law.

    The lawsuit asked the San Francisco federal court to issue an order to restrict Twitter from soliciting employees being laid off to sign documents without informing them of the pendency of the case.

    Reporting by Sheila Dang in Dallas, Katie Paul in Palo Alto, California, and Paresh Dave in Oakland, California; Additional reporting by Fanny Potkin, Rusharti Mukherjee, Aditya Kalra, Martin Coulter, Hyunjoo Jin, Supantha Mukherjee and Arriana McLymore; Writing by Matt Scuffham and Katie Paul; Editing by Kenneth Li, Jason Neely, Matthew Lewis and William Mallard

    Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

    Paresh Dave

    Thomson Reuters

    San Francisco Bay Area-based tech reporter covering Google and the rest of Alphabet Inc. Joined Reuters in 2017 after four years at the Los Angeles Times focused on the local tech industry.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • UK police charge two women after soup thrown at van Gogh’s ‘Sunflowers’

    UK police charge two women after soup thrown at van Gogh’s ‘Sunflowers’

    [ad_1]

    LONDON, Oct 15 (Reuters) – Two women have been charged with criminal damage after climate change protesters threw soup over Vincent van Gogh’s painting “Sunflowers” at London’s National Gallery, British police said on Saturday.

    A video posted by the Just Stop Oil campaign group, which has been holding protests for the last two weeks in the British capital, showed two of its activists on Friday throwing tins of Heinz tomato soup over the painting, one of five versions on display in museums and galleries around the world.

    The gallery said the incident had caused minor damage to the frame but the painting was unharmed. It later went back on display.

    Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

    Police said two women, aged 21 and 20, would appear later at Westminster Magistrates’ Court charged with “criminal damage to the frame of van Gogh’s Sunflowers painting”.

    Another activist will also appear in court accused of damaging the sign outside the New Scotland Yard police headquarters in central London.

    Police said in total 28 people had been arrested during protests on Friday.

    Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

    Reporting by Michael Holden; Editing by Emelia Sithole-Matarise

    Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • White House signals Biden may address filibuster reform soon

    White House signals Biden may address filibuster reform soon

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON, Oct 22 (Reuters) – The White House on Friday offered a strong signal that it is preparing to seek changes soon to a long-standing Senate tradition that has allowed Republicans to block voting rights legislation and other major Democratic initiatives.

    Democratic President Joe Biden, who spent 36 years in the Senate, has previously opposed any significant overhaul of a Senate rule known as the filibuster, which requires 60 of the 100 senators to agree on most legislation. read more

    His opposition has angered Democrats and activists who say an arcane rule should not stand in the way of important issues such as voting rights and immigration.

    Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

    “I expect you’ll hear more from the president about it in the coming weeks,” White House spokesperson Jen Psaki told reporters on Friday about the filibuster. Asked what more he would want to address with filibuster reform beyond voting rights, Psaki said to “stay tuned.”

    During a televised town hall event on Thursday, Biden said the Senate should “fundamentally alter” the filibuster process, but did not offer specifics on how.

    The White House’s potential shift on the issue comes after the latest successful effort by Republicans to block Democratic legislation aimed at thwarting restrictive new voting laws enacted in Republican-led states. On Wednesday, Republicans used the filibuster to block beginning a debate on the measure.

    When Republicans control the White House and the Senate, Democrats have used the filibuster as well.

    Psaki suggested Biden had lost patience with Republican resistance to Democrats’ ideas on voting rights, saying the president is “frustrated” and “disappointed.”

    “When a hand has been extended by Democrats to work together to protect the fundamental right, Republicans have not only recoiled, they have blocked the … ability to make any semblance of progress,” Psaki said.

    While Democrats are united on voting rights, they are not unified in whether to overhaul the filibuster. U.S. Senator Joe Manchin, a moderate Democrat from West Virginia, has publicly opposed eliminating the filibuster, even for specific issues.

    With a 50-50 split in the Senate, Democrats would need all of its members to support changes.

    Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

    Reporting by Jeff Mason and Jarrett Renshaw; additional reporting by Steve Holland; Editing by Jonathan Oatis and Bill Berkrot

    Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Ex-Giuliani associate Parnas found guilty of violating U.S. campaign finance law

    Ex-Giuliani associate Parnas found guilty of violating U.S. campaign finance law

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK, Oct 22 (Reuters) – Lev Parnas, a onetime associate of Donald Trump’s former personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, was found guilty on Friday of violating U.S. campaign finance laws during the 2018 elections.

    Parnas, a Ukraine-born American businessman, and his former associate Igor Fruman had been accused of soliciting funds from Russian businessman Andrey Muraviev to donate to candidates in states where the group was seeking licenses to operate cannabis businesses in 2018.

    Parnas also concealed that he and Fruman, who pleaded guilty in September, were the true source of a donation to a group supporting Republican then-President Trump, prosecutors said. Giuliani’s attorney has said the Parnas case is separate from a probe into whether violated lobbying laws while representing Trump.

    Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

    Giuliani, a U.S. prosecutor in the 1980s before he was elected New York’s mayor in 1994, has not been charged with any crimes and denies wrongdoing.

    Parnas was found guilty on all six counts of federal election law violations that he faced, which included illegally helping a foreigner contribute to a U.S. election campaign, making contributions in the names of others, and lying to the Federal Elections Commission (FEC).

    Andrey Kukushkin, a Muraviev associate and California resident who was tried alongside Parnas, was found guilty on Friday of two counts of campaign finance violations. Kukushkin is also a Ukraine native.

    The trial in U.S. District Court in Manhattan has drawn attention because of the role Parnas and Belarus-born U.S. citizen Fruman played in helping Giuliani, who was Trump’s personal attorney while he held office, to investigate Democrat Joe Biden during the 2020 presidential campaign. Biden won the election, denying Trump a second term.

    Parnas, dressed in a blue suit, stared straight at the jury as the verdict was read. Kukushkin, wearing a grey sweater, shook his head after he was pronounced guilty on the second count.

    “I’ve never hid from nobody,” Parnas said as he left court wearing a black “Combat COVID” mask. “I’ve always stood and tried to tell the truth.”

    His attorney Joseph Bondy said they would be filing a motion to vacate the verdict “in the interest of justice.”

    “It’s obviously a very difficult time for Mr. Parnas and his wife and his children,” Bondy said.

    U.S. District Judge J. Paul Oetken denied a request from prosecutors to detain Parnas and Kukushkin. “The defendants have sufficiently established that they’re not a risk of flight,” Oetken said after the jury left.

    Oetken set a sentencing date of Feb. 16 for Kukushkin. He did not set a sentencing date for Parnas, who faces another possible trial on separate fraud charges.

    ‘IN WELL OVER HIS HEAD’

    The case provided a glimpse into the inner workings of political fundraising in the United States.

    “You saw the wires from Muraviev,” Assistant U.S Attorney Hagan Scotten told the jury during closing arguments on Thursday. “You saw how that money came out on the other side, finding its way into American elections, where the defendants thought they had bought influence to further their business.”

    Parnas’ defense lawyers countered that Muraviev’s funds went toward business investments, not campaign contributions, and that the donation to the pro-Trump group was from a company founded by Parnas and broke no laws.

    In his closing statement Parnas attorney Bondy characterized his client as a passionate proponent of marijuana legalization who was “in well over his head.” He argued that Muraviev’s money funded business operations, not campaign contributions.

    Deliberations in the trial began on Friday morning and lasted about five hours.

    Fruman, who lives in Florida, pleaded guilty to one count of soliciting campaign contributions from a foreign national. His sentencing is scheduled for Jan. 21.

    Parnas and Kukushkin had faced two counts of conspiring to make donations from a foreign national, and making the donations. Parnas had also been charged with four other counts, including making false statements to the Federal Elections Commission.

    Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

    Reporting by Tom Hals in Wilmington, Delaware; Editing by Franklin Paul, Grant McCool and Jonathan Oatis

    Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

    Jody Godoy

    Thomson Reuters

    Jody Godoy reports on banking and securities law. Reach her at jody.godoy@thomsonreuters.com

    Luc Cohen

    Thomson Reuters

    Reports on the New York federal courts. Previously worked as a correspondent in Venezuela and Argentina.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Viral video, opinions challenge Georgia jury selection for Arbery case

    Viral video, opinions challenge Georgia jury selection for Arbery case

    [ad_1]

    Oct 22 (Reuters) – A Georgia court struggled this week to seat jurors in the trial of three white men accused of murdering Black jogger Ahmaud Arbery, underscoring the challenge of finding people who have not formed firm opinions based on a viral video of the shooting.

    “I saw the news footage and I saw the video footage of the crime, and I’ve already formed a guilty opinion of the crime,” one woman told the court earlier this week.

    Arbery’s killing just outside the coastal city of Brunswick, Georgia, in February 2020 stoked national outrage and protests after the cellphone video taken by one of the three defendants went viral.

    Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

    Defense lawyers and prosecutors say they are not looking for jurors who have not seen the video or don’t know about the case. Rather, they are trying to determine whether potential jurors can set aside any opinions they have and make a decision based on evidence presented to the court.

    Former policeman Gregory McMichael, 65; his son Travis McMichael, 35; and neighbor William “Roddie” Bryan, 52, face charges of murder, aggravated assault and false imprisonment. If convicted on all charges, they could draw a maximum sentence of life in prison.

    Superior Court Judge Timothy Walmsley told prosecutors and defense attorneys to speed things up. “I am not comfortable with this,” he said of the pace on the first day of jury selection on Monday.

    As of late Thursday night, out of 80 Glynn County residents interviewed, only 23 residents had been prequalified for a group of 64, from which the ultimate 12 jurors and four alternates will be selected to hear the case.

    Walsley said on Thursday that selection could take well into next week or possibly the week after. The court was not in session on Friday; jury selection is slated to resume on Monday.

    CITIZEN’S ARREST DEFENSE

    Defense attorneys have said in interviews that they plan to base their case largely on a now-defunct version of a “citizen’s arrest” law that allows people in the state to detain someone they suspect of a crime. The three defendants told police they thought Arbery was a burglar and the shooting was in self-defense after Arbery grappled with a shotgun leveled by Travis McMichael.

    Arbery, an avid runner and former high school football star, was shot three times and fell on the street in the suburban neighborhood.

    One potential juror was dismissed because he watched the video more than six times and told the court he thought the men were “guilty. They killed him. They did it as a team.”

    Another said, “The only time I’ve heard of citizen’s arrest is in ‘The Andy Griffith show’,” the 1960s TV comedy about a small-town sheriff.

    The man added that he would listen to both sides in the case. “Everyone deserves their day in court. It’s the foundation of our country, it’s the rule of law.”

    Of the 80 people brought to court through Thursday, a few said they had seen only clips from the video, and only two people told the court they hadn’t seen it.

    “I didn’t want to see somebody killed,” said one man in his 70s.

    Chris Slobogin, a Vanderbilt University law professor, said picking fair juries is harder in the days of cellphones and social media.

    “I mean, everyone’s seen this video,” he said. “I believe the judge will eventually find 12 jurors, but the work is to figure out if a person is being forthright when they say they can set aside what they saw.”

    A nurse told the court that she had thought hard about whether she could be a fair, impartial juror and “prayed about it.”

    “I feel firmly that I could do that,” she said.

    Another potential juror, a retired auto shop owner, said it would be hard to disregard the video.

    “Some things you just can’t unsee,” he said.

    Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

    Reporting by Rich McKay in Atlanta; Additional reporting by Jonathan Allen in New York; Editing by Jonathan Oatis

    Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • U.S. Supreme Court takes up Texas abortion case, lets ban remain

    U.S. Supreme Court takes up Texas abortion case, lets ban remain

    [ad_1]

    Oct 22 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear on Nov. 1 a challenge to a Texas law that imposes a near-total ban on the procedure and lets private citizens enforce it – a case that could dramatically curtail abortion access in the United States if the justices endorse the measure’s unique design.

    The justices took up requests by President Joe Biden’s administration and abortion providers to immediately review their challenges to the law. The court, which on Sept. 1 allowed the law to go into effect, declined to act on the Justice Department’s request to immediately block enforcement of the measure.

    The court will consider whether the law’s unusual private-enforcement structure prevents federal courts from intervening to strike it down and whether the federal government is even allowed to sue the state to try to block it.

    Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

    The measure bans abortion after about six weeks of pregnancy, a point when many women do not yet realize they are pregnant. It makes an exception for a documented medical emergency but not for cases of rape or incest.

    Liberal Justice Sotomayor dissented from the court’s deferral of a decision on whether to block enforcement of the law while the litigation continues. Sotomayor said the law’s novel design has suspended nearly all abortions in Texas, the second most populous U.S. state, with about 29 million people.

    “The state’s gambit has worked. The impact is catastrophic,” Sotomayor wrote.

    The Texas dispute is the second major abortion case that the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has scheduled for the coming months, with arguments set for Dec. 1 over the legality of a restrictive Mississippi abortion law.

    The Texas and Mississippi measures are among a series of Republican-backed laws passed at the state level limiting abortion rights – coming at a time when abortion opponents are hoping that the Supreme Court will overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade that legalized the procedure nationwide.

    Mississippi has asked the justices to overturn Roe v. Wade, and the Texas attorney general on Thursday signaled that he also would like to see that ruling fall.

    Lower courts already have blocked Mississippi’s law banning abortions starting at 15 weeks of pregnancy.

    The Texas measure takes enforcement out of the hands of state officials, instead enabling private citizens to sue anyone who performs or assists a woman in getting an abortion after cardiac activity is detected in the embryo. That feature has helped shield the law from being immediately blocked as it made it more difficult to directly sue the state.

    Individual citizens can be awarded a minimum of $10,000 for bringing successful lawsuits under the law. Critics have said this provision lets people act as anti-abortion bounty hunters, a characterization its proponents reject.

    Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which is representing the abortion providers, said Friday’s decision to hear their case “brings us one step closer to the restoration of Texans’ constitutional rights and an end to the havoc and heartache of this ban.”

    Alexis McGill Johnson, president of healthcare and abortion provider Planned Parenthood, said it is “devastating” that the justices did not immediately block a law that already has had a “catastrophic impact” after being in effect nearly two months.

    “Patients who have the means have fled the state, traveling hundreds of miles to access basic care, and those without means have been forced to carry pregnancies against their will,” she added.

    Kimberlyn Schwartz, a spokesperson for the Texas Right to Life anti-abortion group, praised the court’s action, saying it “will continue to save an estimated 100 babies per day, and because the justices will actually discuss whether these lawsuits are valid in the first place.”

    The Supreme Court only rarely decides to hear cases before lower courts have ruled, indicating that the justices have deemed the Texas matter of high public importance and requiring immediate review.

    The Justice Department filed its lawsuit in September challenging the Texas law, arguing that it is unconstitutional and explicitly designed to evade judicial review.

    Rulings in Texas and Mississippi cases are due by the end of next June, but could come sooner.

    Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

    Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York; Editing by Will Dunham

    Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

    [ad_2]

    Source link